The need for monsters as beings rather than statblocks.

[Umbran]

I guess there's a good chance that all the background fluff was on his mind, but he did not spell it out all again, mistakingly assuming everyone would be on the same page as him.

It read to me that he was simply concentrating on the mechanical design, with a focus on communicating with folks that mechanical design going forward was going to be strongly informed by past versions. The article is also in the context of current playtesting, where the monster's "life" would be controlled by the playtest docs, not by the home adventure designer.

I think the big furor over this article, and what it implies for overall presentation of monsters, is based on reading rather too deeply between the lines.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Historically, part of the problem with monster abilities and ecology is that once you decide to do that for them, you have to do it for all of them. And then some of the entries don't click because the author was up at 3:00 A.M. trying to finish the "P" section, and the editor didn't have time to call it out later, because he is too busy trying to avoid any more stat-block errors than necessary--and still having some anyway.

Maybe the open playtest can help a great deal with this, and thus it becomes possible to have some more evocative, thoughtful ecology and motivation entries.

 

[Janaxstrus]

Just look at the critter:

<Snipped pictures>

I get more of a bird vibe than crab or roach, honestly.

Even the last one looks more lizardy to me.

 

[CleverNickName]

Historically, part of the problem with monster abilities and ecology is that once you decide to do that for them, you have to do it for all of them. And then some of the entries don't click because the author was up at 3:00 A.M. trying to finish the "P" section, and the editor didn't have time to call it out later, because he is too busy trying to avoid any more stat-block errors than necessary--and still having some anyway

Maybe they could call upon us fans and playtesters, to help write some of the fluff? I'd wager that more than a few of the playtesters are capable writers...

 

[KidSnide]

It read to me that he was simply concentrating on the mechanical design, with a focus on communicating with folks that mechanical design going forward was going to be strongly informed by past versions. The article is also in the context of current playtesting, where the monster's "life" would be controlled by the playtest docs, not by the home adventure designer.

I think the big furor over this article, and what it implies for overall presentation of monsters, is based on reading rather too deeply between the lines.

I think that's correct on both counts.

On the other hand, the playtest (and the associated articles) are a great opportunity for WotC to experiment with getting the crunch / fluff interaction right. One of the problems we've been seeing in late 3.x and 4e design is that a lot of thought and playtesting goes into the mechanical aspects of the game while the in-game fiction seems like it is developed on an entirely separate track.

A good monster isn't just fun mechanics and a good story. It's fun mechanics that enable and serve a good story. Yes, WotC can productively work on improving the combat stat-block as its own project, but a good monster requires integration between the mechanics and the in-game fiction. Showing us the mechanics without the story is only half the picture.

-KS

 

[Doug McCrae]

Going back to the original Fiend Folio entry, to me hook horrors feel like a Dr Who monster from the 1970s. They're kind of slow and ponderous and goofy looking, cause they were made on a shoestring budget and there's an actor inside looking out of eyeholes in the chest. The army can't kill them though. Bullets bounce off cause of the exoskeletal armour.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I could never see the point of those ecology articles in Dragon magazine. They seemed to be adding a lot of boring detail to a concept that was stupid and gamist in the first place.

What's the life cycle of a trapper? It doesn't have one, it only exists to be a novel challenge to the players.

If you're going to take the Trollpak approach to a monster, you need to do more than just add - what does it eat? where does it live? - type of details, and also, you need to start with a solid idea in the first place. If the foundational idea is goofy, then you need to turn it on its head, like Alan Moore did with Marvelman.

Basically what I'm saying is that, for fluff, the Chaosium approach is better than the Planescape approach.

 

[Umbran]

On the other hand, the playtest (and the associated articles) are a great opportunity for WotC to experiment with getting the crunch / fluff interaction right.

Sure. But, on the gripping hand, you can't successfully test everything at once. Testing materials ought to be focused to test specific areas, to keep the issues easily identifiable - a good test plan limits the number of variables tested at each stage.

Later on, when they want to test their adventure creation guidelines, they can look at this aspect of the game. But while they are still trying to get the base mechanics straight is not a good time to expect them to look at fluff-crunch interaction.

 

[Umbran]

Going back to the original Fiend Folio entry, to me hook horrors feel like a Dr Who monster from the 1970s. ... The army can't kill them though. Bullets bounce off cause of the exoskeletal armour.

"You know, just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets!" -Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart

 

[Remathilis]

Much ado about nothing...

I read it as "we're going to take all the fluff from 2e, copy it over, and rebuild the monster based on what was there". That's brilliant. Since he's writing a DDi article and NOT the freaking MM entry, Mearls doesn't recopy the cool fluff but concentrates on how that looks with numbers and dice. I have full faith that those cool "flavor" elements will be alive and well, if not stuck in the statblock...