To whom it may concern,
I’m not sure where to begin so I’ll just start by saying the lack of creativity, or better yet, the increase of absurd creativity that has been haunting the pages of your magazine since the take over of the 3.0/3.5 edition of D&D has got to come to some sort of end. Please.
Your adventure designers/creature designers have made a mockery of the more noble monsters, character concepts, and the general intelligence of the gamers that I grew up cherishing in the years I’ve been gaming D&D. I don’t care who you are but creature/character concepts such as Dorn Greybrook (issue 326, Page 35) a Male human/Iron Half Golem Fighter 10/Ranger 3 or Half-Elemental concepts is one degrading and two insulting.
Both the Dungeon and Dragon magazines both have reached a point where I think some inward reflection needs to be the order of the day. Most gamers want a good adventure, a world environment they can both view in mind and character, and a fully functional and wholly believable bad guy at the end. Creatures such as a Half Red-Dragon/ Dryad Druid 10/ Pyromancer 5 are just a joke. And please for the love of all that is hackable do not use that concept. Would it not be easier to put a Single Human Thief or Assassin that the players are trying to find or apprehend that have led them on a marry chase through town killing members of an elite order, trying to work his way to the top man which insulted the thief in some way shape or form, only to have the thief be one of the order himself. Or one like a new museum has opened in town that has the most realistic statues of the prominent nobles of the areas, only for the players to somehow find out the museum curator is a medusa in disguise as a human and has sent doppelgangers to replace those she has turned to stone in order to gain power in the town.
Things like this, the simple concepts, ones that can work and are more “believable” to the players are I believe what most of us are looking for. Can you throw in something really weird here or there? Sure that’s the fun part of D&D. Leave them in a fun-park/mad-scientist scene and leave the monsters that deserve the respect of players and GMs alike alone. Give the dragon back his noble, haughty, holier (if not really holier) than thou attitude. And not degrade him by breeding with a naga or kobold or something else that doesn’t deserve a second chance by a dragon. Don’t give into the thought that a Half Displacer Beast/ Half Fiendish Beholder that has eyestalks instead of tentacles as a good idea in the mini adventures you create.
I’m truly sorry to have to finally come out in saying this. Creativity is a wonderful thing and you’ve more than proven you’re capable of thought and expression. Its just time those thoughts and expression be used for what these magazine were originally here for. To help bolster the game, give new ideas and new adventures to those wanting them, and inspire those new to the game to want to join in.
Thank you for hearing me out.
Jason Robert Dooley
Melbourne, Florida
jdrastus@hotmail.com
|
You are right in some points and I got these thoughts as well a couple of months ago.
But I made peace with this issue in thinking of it the following way:
Don't think of these characters (or creatures) as a half-elemental, thief6/assassin5. Just close your eyes and take a moment to picture this creature...
Then just take the values as they are and you have a wonderful creature with abilities no one can fathom! What I so like with the new edition of D&D is the fact that my players can never be sure what their opponent (even if its a single kobold) is cabable of.
Your players will never know that their opponent is a half-elemental when you just describe what they see. They will wonder what stands in front of them and might get afraid because they just don't know if this will get an easy fight or not.
Of course there are some combinations which sound VERY SILLY (how does a half-golem comes into existence?), but these things are not the majority.
Ah, you'd be looking for www.dragonsfoot.net then...
Would it not be easier to put a Single Human Thief or Assassin that the players are trying to find or apprehend that have led them on a marry chase through town killing members of an elite order, trying to work his way to the top man which insulted the thief in some way shape or form, only to have the thief be one of the order himself. Or one like a new museum has opened in town that has the most realistic statues of the prominent nobles of the areas, only for the players to somehow find out the museum curator is a medusa in disguise as a human and has sent doppelgangers to replace those she has turned to stone in order to gain power in the town.
In 1st or 2nd edition D&D, you'd need to have a published adventure to explore almost any concept or story. They're clunky systems and often unhelpful. . . I had no idea how unhelpful until 3.0 came along. Now, with 3.0/3.5, you can make your two adventure ideas happen in an hour. Find the appropriate pages in the Monster Manual for Medusae and Doppelgangers, then flip open the DMG to use the NPC Rogue stats on pge 123, and the trap stats in pgs. 70-75. Add a couple of treaure tables. You're done!! If you want to do something else, flip the the DMG pgs. 44-45 for 100 adventure ideas.
If simple architypes and basic vanilla plotlines are what you want, then why do you need a magazine suppliment?
|
|
I agree with some of what JDRastus just said, but I think the magazine has already taken steps to eliminate the perceived problem.
For a while, just about everything in D&D was getting a template, and it was getting a little ridiculous. I know for a fact they've indicated half-dragons are not going to be used.
Templates are a useful feature, but they can easily be overdone, particularly when a single creature has multiple templates. A human - half/giant half/dragon fiendish lich, I believe is possible by the rules, but it doesn't make any sense to me. How do you start with a base human but add 2 halves? The assumption that the mother carried some "giant genes" can make it happen, but I don't like it.
I also don't like half-elementals, half-golems or half-undead. For those things, it is one or the other. I don't know if I remember coming across a half-elemental, but it shouldn't happen.
Now, the reason I agree with JDRastus is that some adventures use a templated creature as the major selling point. It shouldn't be. If the adventure is otherwise good, it helps to have a memorable villian. If the adventure is otherwise bad, it won't help enough. Now, the things that make a villian memorable have more to do with great dialogue than an awesome template/PrC combination. That is something that isn't usually included to any great degree.
Another line that is far too frequently used in adventures is "They will fight to the death". I miss having a "morale system" to determine when enemies break and run, but intelligent enemies must have a motivation. Throwing away their life is unlikely to be sufficent for them. Perhaps if they're members of a religious order that believe death through battle is glorious, but if they're defending their women and children in the next room, eventually someone might try to arrange a peaceful surrender.
So, too many templates are bad for the same reason "cliche" evil creatures are bad - it's taking the easy way out.
I can definitely agree that templates and such are overused. The problem is that most of the ideas for base creatures have been used in some form or another. If they took out all the templating and PC levels from the creatures and just used the stock monsters from the DMG, they'd get a whole pile of letters every issue saying "Sure, _The Town Museum_ was an interesting adventure, but it's pretty derivative of _Stone Town_ and _Wax Museum_ from publishers X and Y." Dungeon has to make the adventures memorable, and a very easy (and yes, overused) way to do that is to make the enemies some bizarre concoction. Sometimes that works really well -- look at the recent adventure with the dryad that got bonded to the fiendish tree -- but a lot of the time it's just a shortcut.
Another part of the problem is that for an adventure to have a lot of impact on the players, it has to have a real game effect... How many times have the players rescued a hostage? Pretty ho-hum adventure for most experienced players... But what if the hostage is the thief's daughter? Or what if the kidnappers are the ranger's allies, who've taken the mayor "hostage" as a way of rescuing him from his enemies and flushing them out, only the PCs don't know what's going on so the party thinks that the ranger's friends have suddenly turned evil? Or maybe the entire situation is a trap concocted by Velania, the elven wizard they defeated last year, but she escaped the collapsing castle thanks to a handy Dimension Door scroll she kept just for that reason, and now she's out for revenge?
Those are likely pretty memorable adventures, assuming the DM has the first sweet clue what they're doing. But they're not easy to do in Dungeon, because they all depend on some party history. The trap scenario I guess is pretty easy to work in... every party leaves behind a trail of enemies over the years... But the faked kidnapping to rescue the mayor scenario only works if you've already established that one of the party members has an organisation they work closely with at times and with whom they're good friends... Without that, there's less drama, less attachment to the NPCs who've "turned evil". Not every party has that kind of situation.
Dungeon's kinda stuck... They have to make fairly generic adventures (except when they do adventure paths) yet also make them interesting and memorable... Too generic, and people will get bored and stop buying. Not generic enough, and people will get frustrated and stop buying. And as annoying as they are, the hyper-complex multi-templated villains are an easy way to accomplish that goal.
[QUOTE="DeadDMWalking"
Templates are a useful feature, but they can easily be overdone, particularly when a single creature has multiple templates. A human - half/giant half/dragon fiendish lich, I believe is possible by the rules, but it doesn't make any sense to me. How do you start with a base human but add 2 halves? The assumption that the mother carried some "giant genes" can make it happen, but I don't like it.
Yes, tehy can be overdone. I am not a fan of using templates in my own campaigns. . . but then again, alot of it is because using them take alot of time away from game prep. If I know that issue 121 of Dungeon has a few Half-Dragon trolls in it, I can just swipe their stats and use them with a minute's prep.
If I only need a 10th level fighter. . . well, that's a little easier. I don't need the magazine's help.
By this rationale, the more exotic the better.
Now, the reason I agree with JDRastus is that some adventures use a templated creature as the major selling point. It shouldn't be. If the adventure is otherwise good, it helps to have a memorable villian. If the adventure is otherwise bad, it won't help enough. Now, the things that make a villian memorable have more to do with great dialogue than an awesome template/PrC combination. That is something that isn't usually included to any great degree.
Absolutely correct. This shouldn't be the selling point in any adventure. The thing about Dungeon magazine is that the adventures contain within don't often do this.
If any character/villian is intersting, then does it really matter if it has a bunch of templates and levels?
Then again, if it really doesn't matter, why not have some variety? Instead of 250 set Monster Manual encounters, you have thousands. It's the beauty of the system. . . the PC's see a Troll, and it's like "everybody light torches." They see an advanced hit die Troll with 5 Barbarian levels, Raging with a greatsword. . . well, you get the point.
3.0/3.5 is a Renassaince of variety and creativity, and I'm glad that the Paizo mags are on board with it.
"How's that for cornball." - from Scent of a Woman
|
This is tangentially related, but one thing I am tired of seeing in adventures (not just Dungeon adventures, but let's pick on them for a minute) is elaborate background information that the PCs will never find out. Or worse yet, elaborate background information that has no effect on the adventure.
...
Now, it's a great read for the DM, which may be part of the point. But there needs to be a better balance struck between enough backstory to be interesting, and too much that is a waste of word count.
There is no way for me to disagree with you more deeply, Joshua... I love the depth of backstory generally included and would absolutely hate it to see it go. There are may of us (players and DMs) that want to have a very strong role-playing component in the game. Many of us do not just take an adventure from and play it dry from the mag, but rather weave it into our ongoing adventures or campaign worlds. When you are doing that, I find the backstory and motivations of the villians and NPCs indespensable. I would have to readily admit to being in what you would describe as the 'psycho-drama' camp, but that is whay I and my players have tended to like. There is room and time for good old fashion blood-and-gore hack-and-slash, but that's generally not what makes a great gaming experience for us... That's pretty much what X-box and Playstation are for.
Creative Director
|
Templates and templated creatures are here to stay; they're a tremendously useful tool in creating unique adversaries and giving a theme to several otherwise unconnected monsters in an adventure.
That said, I certainly agree that templates can quickly go over the top. Whenever possible, I like to see reasons for why a creature has a template. For a fiendish monster, this can be as simple as saying "It's from the Abyss." For more complex creatures, I encourage our authors to come up with reasons why the monster is the way it is. Which is the reason behind the background information for Amarantha.
Another reason for putting in that background information is to inform the DM. His players may never find out why Amarantha's doing what she's doing, and it's certainly possible that they don't even care. But by giving the DM a detailed character history for her, we're giving the DM crucial information he needs to portray Amarantha as a character with personality and an agenda, rather than just a dry set of stats. And I've learned that there's no greater mistake in D&D than to underestimate a player's curriosity. Better to err on the side of too much information rather than not enough.
Finally... there's absolutely No Way a DM can use every single adventure he gets in a year's worth of Dungeon. A year's worth of the magazine gives you (at minimum) 36 adventures. I've been in campaigns that haven't finished ONE adventure in a year. Does that mean we should only print 1 adventure a year? Certainly not; we try to print as wide a variety as we can to appeal to as many readers as we can. At the same time, we try to present them in a way that makes them fun to read. If you read an adventure and enjoy it but never run it... I consider that adventure a success.
Now, to bring the conversation back to templates... I have to admit that I don't really understand the mindset that rejects templated monsters, but I respect it tremendously. Whenever a templated monster shows up in the magazine, I give it a good long look to make sure the template is necessary. Frankly, running a stat block for a normal umber hulk takes up a LOT less room than one for a woodling wendigo umber hulk. Thing is, often those templates enable plotlines that a normal creature can't support.
In any event, I'm not that convinced that there IS a problem in Dungeon with "template bloat." I just flipped through issue #125, and in the three adventures therein, saw only six templates. And all of these were in one adventure; "Seekers of the Silver Forge." All templates required for the story rather than just idly attached to monsters to trick them out. Issue #124 has even less templates.
If it helps, would it be better to treat templated monsters more like entirely new monsters? Is it better to call that woodling wendigo umber hulk a "Whispering Hulk?" and keep the dirty secret that it's a templated monster hidden behind the scenes?
|
|
I hoped I made it clear, but it is possible I did not.
There is a valid purpose for templates, and it is fine if they're done right. I think Dungeon has used them responsibly lately, and I don't expect that to change. When referring to the hobby in general, it seems that templates have often been overused, and it seems like it wasn't that long ago that we were dealing with far too many half-dragons in Dungeon's pages.
Of course, that just might be a perception with no basis in fact. I'm not going to check through a few dozen issues to see if that is the case, but I think that overall we're probably in a good place.
Please though, maintain the policy of requiring the author to justify the use of templates. Because it would be a shame if it did become overused.
But the majority (the vast majority, in my experience) of players just want to kill monsters and take their stuff -- so Amarantha's elaborate backstory is totally wasted.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't know whether hack-and-slash or pscho-drama players make up the majority, but it doesn't really matter. There are very, very few groups or even individual players who are pure hack-and-slash players. I've played with some pretty combat-focussed groups over the years, and in all of those groups, the kind of backstory that was provided for Amarantha would have been appreciated. Admittedly it would be appreciated on the level of "Hey, that's a good excuse for something new to kill!", but it would still be appreciated.
Maybe you're so focussed on hack-and-slash that you don't see the rest happening, or maybe you attract like-minded players? I'm not disputing that most of the people you've played with would find that kind of backstory useless, but I'd have to say that your group is more than likely an aberration. And hey, if you're happy playing that way, you're playing the game right. More power to you. But the majority of players don't play as purely combat-oriented games as you obviously do, and if the players care at all about story, Amarantha's backstory would be valuable for them. I'm even thinking of a group I was in where the wizard incinerated an entire town with Fireballs, just because he felt like rolling more damage when a fight ended too quickly for his taste. Even in that group, the kind of detail in Amarantha's backstory would be handy.
And James: Yes, templates and such can be very handy. I'm not saying they are being overused, but that I have seen them be overused. I just wasn't careful enough with what I wrote, obviously. :-)
Edit: Just re-read my previous post. Yeah, I say pretty clearly that templated creatures are overused. What I meant was that overall, templated creatures are overused -- that is, when you count in all the D&D material that I see, including in groups that I game in, there's too much attachment to overly-complex villains. Dungeon is generally pretty good about it, from what I remember.
Of course there are some combinations which sound VERY SILLY (how does a half-golem comes into existence?), but these things are not the majority.
Some sort of fantasy-cyborg, maybe? I'll have to dig out issue #326 to read up on this as I don't remember it. And aren't the Warforged in Eberron really a sort of half-golem in the sense that their bodies are constructed but they have a sentience and a spirit?
- Chris Shadowens
It seems that there's a kind of assumption that a basic dungeon crawl with orcs and ogres and a hobgoblin chieftain on his throne have come and gone....
They haven't....my players love basic adventures....they're not all hack and slash..there's politics and background plotting, but it's been a really long time since I've seen a typical old fashioned D&D adventure done well.
Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Mona--I know that you guys say that the overused stereotype is automatic rejection? How about at least one or two adventures every year where an old cliche' is revisited? I'd love to see "In Search of the Unknown" or "The Keep on the Borderlands" in 3.5 (maybe with a twist or two). Templates are okay in moderation, I think!
Let's hear it for a revival of cliche' D&D adventures....just a little one??
Yes, I know this is a Dragon thread and not a Dungeon thread....
|
|
On an tangentially related note, I would like to say that almost all of the Dungeon adventures do a superb job of enforcing the "dungeon layout has to make sense". We almost always get logical room connections, storage areas, bedrooms, etc. No latrines, however. ;)
Oh, would you just let them have their privacy?
Monsters have notoriously shy bladders...it's one of the things that makes them so grumpy.
On an tangentially related note, I would like to say that almost all of the Dungeon adventures do a superb job of enforcing the "dungeon layout has to make sense". We almost always get logical room connections, storage areas, bedrooms, etc. No latrines, however. ;)
I couldn't agree more with you. To quote the movie Greed, "Where does the poop go?!" Maybe the monsters all have cans of Vapoorize in their dungeons ;)
This bugs me so much, that I always add some kind of waste disposal area in my dungeons. In "Fiend's Embrace" (Dungeon #121), area 5 of Cold Stones Keep is one big "crapper." :)
Another line that is far too frequently used in adventures is "They will fight to the death". I miss having a "morale system" to determine when enemies break and run, but intelligent enemies must have a motivation. Throwing away their life is unlikely to be sufficent for them. Perhaps if they're members of a religious order that believe death through battle is glorious, but if they're defending their women and children in the next room, eventually someone might try to arrange a peaceful surrender.
I agree, this is something that should be adressed in the game. Even orcs want to live! Although fights to the death are dramatic, too much drama isn't a good thing. Have your npc's and monster turn tail once in a while...or better yet surrender. This leads to returning NPC's with a grudge and some moral dilemma's.
Stacking templates is FUN! But moderation is key (such a simple truth).
Mr. Jacobs I'd like to first thank you for even responding to this web post. I didn't exactly know how much attention these boards got. And secondly say that I do understand that it takes a tremendous effort on you and your staff's part in running a monthly magazine, to which I commend you all. But my post concerns the fact that it seemed to me that the template situation(s) was being used in an unrealistic (sad I know saying this in a fantasy set magazine) manor. Its not that the templates are bad, some are very creative. To me you have to look at the universe you've created, basically the whole D&D universe, and base the templates that are being created around that universe.
For instance its been published many times that elementals are concidered sexless. That being said how does a half-elemental come into existance? Half-Djinn, Half-Dao and so forth, while still far fetched, are in the realm of believeable to I think both players and DMs alike, but a creature made up entirely of earth, air, or metal (for a weirder side) to me shouldn't come into the picture at all.
Half-Golems like mentioned in the aforementioned post as a template just seem down right silly as well as redundant when you have such races to use as the War-Forged. Saying he was a War-Forged Dragon Hunter that remembered what it was like to be human (because War-Forged use Human parts to survive)and remembers what that dragon did to him thus spawning the Dragon Hunter insided him. Not only would it be less writing on your part in the whole believeable storyline but it would also be less you'd have to write in the character STAT block. Well, possibly less.
Its not that templates are horrible and evil and shouldn't be used at all. Far from it. But I think that they should be used with the thought in mind that not "could it happen" but "should it happen." Something like a Half-giant wererat. Could it happen? Possibly. Should it happen? Why not. Now take a Minotaur Were-rat. Could it happen? By all rules and gameplay, again possibly. Should it happen? Well I think you can catch my drift by now.
I also think that keeping to one template per character would in most normal situations be enough to convey what you want from a storyline. Fiendish Medusa, Shadow Troll, Ghost Tarrasque, all of those could peak the characters interest without going into the realm of Fiendish Half-Medusa Half Golem realm. Now can character levels still be added to all those, yes wonderfully. A Shadow Troll Shadow Adept could be wonderfully evil and still be in the side of believable and workable.
Thank you again so much for the attention to the post.
Jason Dooley.
|
Creative Director
|
We were talking here at the office, and came to the realization that the templates that people seem to take issue with the most are those that start with the word "Half." Which is interesting.
One thing to keep in mind is that a "half" creature isn't necessarilly the result of two different creatures engaged in biological contact. Half golems and half elementals, for example, can just as easilly come about as the result of magical experimentation, teleportation accidents, crazy artifacts, or whatever. Half golems, it strikes me, are pretty much D&D fantasy versions of cyborgs.
As for the half-golem taking up the warforged's niche, remember that the stats for the half-golem came about years before the warforged. One of the cool things about the game is the sheer number of choices you can make for monsters. There are a lot of them out there, so chances are good that you can find something to fill the "creepy half-living golem man" that not everyone in your group has heard of before...
|
|
We were talking here at the office, and came to the realization that the templates that people seem to take issue with the most are those that start with the word "Half." Which is interesting.
I'd posit that "half" templates probably make up the largest number of templates to be found. And while magical experimentation might be used to justify "random" individuals, it doesn't help to create a tribe of "true-breeding" individuals.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that templates should have a believable origin if they're going to be used. The general default assumption is that someone becomes a "half-something" through some form of biological union. Whether those biological unions are even possible is another question.
Let me try to make my point another way. We're all residents of the planet earth. Despite speculation about the relative intelligence of primates and cetaceans, humans are the only apparent intelligent race. In most fantasy settings we have dozens if not hundreds of intelligent, humanoid races. A world that has room for orcs, elves, goblins, yuan-ti, hobgoblins, ogres, humans, yak-folk, kenku, Beastmen, needlefolk (not too civilized), lizard folk, etc, etc, etc, is much "fuller" than our current world.
These fantasy worlds almost universally assume that humans are the most populous race, and for the most part, control the most territory.
Now, when you take large numbers of templated creatures, you have to fit them into the "scheme" of things. Or at least, I do. My players want to participate in a "realistic" world. Part of that means not creating a new creature everytime they explore a new dungeon. If they're going to find a new creature, they should likely have heard a rumor of its existence at the very least.
A template offers an opportunity to take one of these myriad creatures and put a new spin on it, but how come no one noticed before?
I'm preparing for a move, so I've already packed away my recent Dungeons. However, in the most recent issue the gitzerai featured in the third adventure all had a template applied. In this case, it was explained by their long exposure to a powerful artifact. The justifcation made sense, and their isolation from other creatures is also justified by their location. This is an example of a templated group of creatures I can easily fit into my game without difficulty.
I said earlier that Dungeon has done a fairly good job with templates (at least lately), and part of that is by requiring a justification for their use. Still, they're something that can easily be abused, just like "sub-races" of elves. Of course, that is another "can of worms" and I probably should leave it alone.
Suffice to say, templates are best used (like most things) in moderation.
"I guess what I'm trying to say is that templates should have a believable origin if they're going to be used."
I'll go further than that: They should actually make the character more interesting, not just odd or an unusual tactical challenge to fight.
Amaranth is a good example. The template is explained, well-integrated into the character's personality and provides story hooks for players to latch onto and for GM's to exploit.
Bad is some generic dude wandering around the dungeon who just happens to be a fiendish half-dragon kobold sorceror, and you have no idea why, how this makes him a more compelling character personality-wise, what role he's supposed to play in the adventure that a "standard" kobold sorceror could not or what sorts of hooks you can use to make the players care about him and use his unusual status as a springboard for other adventures.
No matter what, templates should be rare. If more than one creature in an adventure has one, there should be a single good reason for it (which will almost always involve a single "origin" for all the creatures with a given template, like environmental contamination or a curse or somesuch). Remember, if most of us were bearded ladies or flipper boys, we'd probably go to the circus to gawk at Brad Pitt.
If the only reason the template is there is to make the monster more powerful or to distract from the lack of interesting background and personality the with sheer "freakshow factor", that's just bad, IMHO. That's what I think people are mainly getting-at when they complain about them.
|
Creative Director
|
No matter what, templates should be rare.
I disagree. Sure, SOME templates should be rare. But some can't be. I'm talking about zombies, skeletons, fiendish/celestial creatures, and probably even vampires, liches, and ghosts. Some of these are staple D&D monsters, and a few of them show up so often that it's easy to forget they're templates in the first place.
Templated creatures, to me, serve the same purpose a new monster serves. They give veteran players something to wonder about. However, unlike new monsters (which always require an extensive full write up in an appendix), a templated creature takes up relatively little room; just a full-sized stat block.
Don't get me wrong, though. I agree fully that a templated monster needs a reason to be in an adventure. I extend that expectation to every monster in an adventure, or I try to, at least.
|
Creative Director
|
Oh! And thinking about templates made me realize something.
I think it's arguable that the template mechanic is one of the things most directly responsible for the long hiatus of the Critical Threat feature. For as long as I've been working at Paizo, I'd guess that 2/3 (or possibly more) of the critical threats we've seen are templated creatures. Now, a few of these were interesting, but the vast majority were obviosly pinning their hopes for publication on tricky template work. The fact that we haven't printed many critical threats should be a testament to the magazine's interest in idle templates.
What I'm saying is that if you think Dungeon's gone too far with templated monsters... a peek through the slush pile would probably drive you blind.
Okay. To narrow the point down and bring this to some hopeful conclusion. I started this post in the hopes that the use of templates could be looked at and analayzed to see whiether or not they really needed to be used in a module. To me its all about storyline. Some of the greatest stories out there are about the simple characters making their way through the world they live in fighting monsters that threaten everyday life. Bilbo and Smaug, halfing and dragon. Braum Stroker's Dracula, humans versus vampires. To me the players don't have to go against something that templated to the Nine Hells and back in order to have fun in their game. A troll with levels of fighter or blackguard can pose enough of a threat to them that I don't have to through a template on him in order to make him nastier. I don't have to throw on the Fiendish template to make him stronger or more resistant. Its the idea that you use a template in order for the players to investigate another avenue of the adventure. "Goodness, the local mayors been infected with lycanthropy, how do we save him and maintain his good name in the town." "Whoa did you hear that a ship pulled to dock with nothing but zombies on board?" "That wizard is at it again. Do you really think he'll be able to summon that monster he keeps threating to?"
The monsters if played right should be able to get the players attention enough that going overboard on templates shouldn't become a problem. A boat load of zombies and a zombie lord as a captain should be enough of a challenge for the players that you don't have to make the zombie lord golemish in any way. That's why they put the hit dice advancements on the monster charts at the bottom of their discription. If a 24 2HD zombies and a 6HD captain aren't enough, then make them 24 12HD zombies with an 18HD captain. The challenge is there and you don't have to go into explaining why he's half-golem or fiendish or trollish or anything other than being a 18HD zombie.
P.S. What the heck is a managing editor doing at work at 1 AM in the morning... =P
Jason
I am intrigued by the backlash against feats and other fantastic game elements. I do believe templates are somewhat overused, but when I wrote the "The Amarantha Agenda" I thought that the templates were well thought out and well used (that could just be me). Not only that, but my next adventure has a new template in it as well (and that's all I'm going to say in case James tells me off). I suppose by a lot of peoples standards I use templates too much. Then again, I don't think of templates the same way as most other people do on this thread. For starters, I never use the word template in my own campaign. For instance, the half-fiend werewolves that populate my world are called something else entirely, not half-fiend werewolves. Plus my players now think of them as being an integral part of my campaign, much like any orc or goblin, not as some sort of oddity.
Fantasy literature is full of fantastic strangeness, more bizarre than any template. The works of Fritz Leiber, H.P. Lovecraft, and Michael Moorcock are incredibly strange. Not all D&D needs to be Conan and Lord of the Rings, let alone Keep of the Borderlands. As for D&D back in the good old days before the insanity of templates just have a look at modules like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and The Ghost Tower of Iverness. Both of these are filled with more D&D strangeness than you can poke a stick at, some of which is much more peculiar than half-fiends, half-golems or half-elementals.
Perhaps templates are overused, but they're also fun to use, and can be integrated with little or no effort if you have an open mind and a creative spark. Some might say that the current fixation with templates is a backlash against using the same old doppelgangers, dragons, medusas, and owlbears in adventures time and time again. I think its more complicated than that, but what the heck do I know?
I guess I still don't understand. How can a template hurt creativity? I have seen plenty of examples in this posting about good story elements, believable "standard" races, and the need for every creature populated in a dungeon to have a good reason for being there.
I agree with all of this. But, if I'm getting this argument right, some people here also believe that if you have a template in a published adventure, it is somehow replacing or distracting you from the good story/plot/character/etc.
JDRastus Wrote:
"A boat load of zombies and a zombie lord as a captain should be enough of a challenge for the players that you don't have to make the zombie lord golemish in any way. That's why they put the hit dice advancements on the monster charts at the bottom of their discription. If a 24 2HD zombies and a 6HD captain aren't enough, then make them 24 12HD zombies with an 18HD captain. The challenge is there and you don't have to go into explaining why he's half-golem or fiendish or trollish or anything other than being a 18HD zombie."
Why can't there be both? Why does it hurt the adventure if the "Zombie Master" is:
- a half-golem, enraged at his situation and pirating the port towns for enough replacement limbs and 7 rare components (each one only avaiable on each of the 7 Islands of the Lotsar Sea) to create a new body for himself that is "untainted" by anything but flesh.
- a half-dragon, fueled by his lust for treasure, find himself a dark ship made of dragon hide, which contains some of the spirit of a dragon anscestor. The taint of the dragon magic begins to fuel zombie changes in his crew, and he is driven mad himself by the dark whisperings of his dragon blood. He is torn between politing the vessel and tearing it apart.
- a half- water elemental, who uses seaweed-covered Sauguin Zombies to crew his strange, waterlogged merchant vessel, the Dark Promise. He pilots his ship to the middle of the ocean, where a portal exists to the Elemental plane of Water. His wares? He sells stolen wishes from the Djinn, who are seeking the transgressor for punishment.
I'm not saying these are good/great ideas, but what is there to complain about? How does the use of templates in the above examples distract or detract from the enjoyment of the players?
Are your players really going to eat your lunch because you have templated creatures in it, or yap about it being "unbelievable" because you don't have a family tree printed out for them? If you make it interesting or fun, why would they care?
My players don't care..."what was that we just killed?"
All the templates just give DM's in 3.5 a formal way to make up weird creatures, which they did in 1st and 2nd edition anyway--without any formal rules to back them up to make the game more consistent.
The good thing is that now you can make your weird creature part of your submitted adventure, because the rules now say you can do it in a consistent manner.
If you don't like the templated creature, change it to something else. I always turn knobs and screws on every adventure out of Dungeon that I run...to the point that some of the authors of same would have a hard time recognizing their own adventure, I'm sure.
I just ran "Tammeraut's Fate" from #106--straight up out of the magazine with no changes except for the plot hook....it was weird to run an adventure without twisting the hell out of it. My players liked it, but in retrospect I should have been Dagon's Maw a little more detailed than just a hole in the ocean floor with a ship sticking out of it....I know!! A golem-sea dragon-ghost-7th level monk template...yeah, that's the ticket.
My players would appreciate the subtlety of that creation...
"Wow, that's weird...Armor Class??"
"Why can't there be both? Why does it hurt the adventure if the 'Zombie Master' is:"
Because most templated characters are (rather lazily) not explained as well as your examples. You're using the templates as part of a coherent backstory filled with potential adventure hooks, which is the opposite of the approach everybody is complaining about.
"Why can't there be both? Why does it hurt the adventure if the 'Zombie Master' is:"
Because most templated characters are (rather lazily) not explained as well as your examples. You're using the templates as part of a coherent backstory filled with potential adventure hooks, which is the opposite of the approach everybody is complaining about.
I don't perceive that being the core complaint after rereading the posts. . . I think there are a number of very different complaints regarding templates on this board, which I'm hoping my examples address.
I do understand that the above summation is YOUR core complaint, and I agree with you 100%. Templates are no replacement for a compelling idea/hook. After al, I don't want to pitch a bunch of extra junk at the PCs, just to give myself a bunch of work during prep time. . . I'm too lazy for that. I'll only do a template if there's a good reason for it. I'm sure the boys and girls at Paizo feel the same.
As DeadDM said, there isn't alot of that going on in the magazine anyway.
...Braum Stroker's Dracula, humans versus vampires. ... "Whoa did you hear that a ship pulled to dock with nothing but zombies on board?"
Of course, both vampires and zombies are templates. :)
All those asking, "Why do people have an issue with templates?" are overlooking the fundamental nature of the gamer-geek.
They're all whiners.
"They're all whiners."
Whining about whiners is still whining.
Okay. 1) This isn't a whining thread. So I'll put a stop to this right here and now. 2) So far there has been constructive input here and I hope I can keep it that way.
The BASE purpose of this thread was the fact of you DON'T NEED to throw in some bizarre creature templated nine ways to Sunday in order to make a plot line and adventure hooks to string a group of players along. That's been the entire point from the beginning. Its not a matter for the lack of creativity on our side or on the side of adventure writers which I have stated from the get go. They have shown that they can be VERY creative in the fact that they CAN put out templates and adventures every month. My one comment was the "Please stop with the "silly" templates. The templates that make absolutely no sense with certain types of monsters. For example Half-Minotaur Displacer beasts, Half-Gold Dragon Pixies, Half-Black Dragon Nagas, or Celestial Pit Fiends. Those are the down right silly combinations that really shouldn't be in ANY adventure unless your trying to make some bizzare Behind the Looking Glass style game or that of a Carnival Side Show adventure. A normal campaign can get along with being believeable as well as functional on all levels without going completely overboard.
And to stop the issues of monster templates. Yes Vampires and Zombies and Mummies and Golems and Skeletons and the list could go on forever about monster races that could be combined together to form a totally unique monster. So to stop the issue of that. Every monster in the Monsters Manual IS by all intents and purposes a template for monsters to be used and here of late abused. My issue within all of this having been a gamer for a LONG time myself is the fact that monsters that I dearly loved growing up are fast becoming a mockery of what they once were just BECAUSE of the fact that there's this overwhelming since of urgency to find a new monster or template and combine them to make a totally new monster that now demeans both monster races that they initially started out as. Like I mentioned before about a Half Red Dragon Dryad that's both a pryomancer and a druid. One it demeans Red Dragon's that if done RIGHT are horrible creatures on their own, and two, unless raped by the red dragon no dryad in their right mind would consent to being coupled/bonded/magically bound to a fire breathing destorier of the forest. Leave the creatures SOME dignity.
The templates that make absolutely no sense with certain types of monsters. For example Half-Minotaur Displacer beasts, Half-Gold Dragon Pixies, Half-Black Dragon Nagas, or Celestial Pit Fiends.
I think these are pretty interesting, and present 100s of ideas for a creative DM. I could focus on origions, ecology, battle tactics, you name it. . . maybe I'll just do a little example of inner conflict, tainted with a bit o' madness:
1. Half-Gold Dragon Pixie - torn about the human race. . . is tempted to trick and beguile instead of help mankind. Locked himself in a illusory den of ever-changing decor, and refuses visitors and protestations of aid.
2. Half Black Dragon Naga - serves as a treasure guardian for a powerful group of creatures. He is extremely lustful for the treasure he guards, and yet not derelict in his duties. Temptation has driven it to madness, and it snaps at everyone, even those that created it.
3. Celestial Pit Fiends - sits in a pulsating cocoon, deep beneath the waters of the holy water sea in Mount Celestia. His mind is locked in a torment of heavenly and hellish dreams, as his physical needs are tended by a group of merciful LG tritons.
4. Half Minotaur DIsplacer Beast - Wanders a force maze, piteously alone. It's creator and purpose forgotten and long dead. It's horns are broken, and it's hide covered in scars, as it's noble Minotaur blood (took liberty that it was a Krynnish Minotaur!) prevents it from hiding and striking from surprise.
My issue within all of this having been a gamer for a LONG time myself is the fact that monsters that I dearly loved growing up are fast becoming a mockery of what they once were. . .
I have been a gamer for a long time to. . . but I just don't see things this way. I really can understand your points. . . it's very similar to how I feel about Arwen's role in the LOTR movies.
However, I think that D&D, like LOTR, is not canon. It is not physics. It is not law or rules or limitations (except when balance is an issue). In fact, everything gets enhanced when these rules are broken (in balance). Instead of having a single, "this-is-the-way-the-story-goes," I now have two versions, or five, or a hundred. It's great. . . and creativity made it happen. How can I disparage that?
I love red dragons, too, and I feel that they're pretty scary on their own. In fact, I'll still use Red Dragons, on their own, to (hopefully) good effect in the future. However, if I see a Red Dragon with a half-Water Elemental template in a magazine, it won't bother me. My beloved Red Dragon is STILL there. . . and now I have stats in my hand for ANOTHER kind of dragon, with its own ecology, motivations, history, etc.
Also, like Mr. Jacobs said, half- templates do not mean two opposing races got together and bumped uglies. That creature's origin could be anything. . . that's the beauty of a unique creature.
Finally, anything, even a lowly Kobold, has dignity if you choose to play it that way.
*Edit*
When I said . . .
It is not law or rules or limitations (except when balance is an issue). In fact, everything gets enhanced when these rules are broken (in balance).
I wasn't talking about game mecahnics. Just in case ther is any confusion.
My issue within all of this having been a gamer for a LONG time myself is the fact that monsters that I dearly loved growing up are fast becoming a mockery of what they once were just BECAUSE of the fact that there's this overwhelming since of urgency to find a new monster or template and combine them to make a totally new monster that now demeans both monster races that they initially...
I've been a gamer for a long time too... and I can appreciate your points, but like Chris, I also see the templates as an opportunity.
One of the examples you gave that he didn't tackle:
Half-Red Dragon Dryad: Eladrayil fell in love decades ago with a handsome young man with red hair that blazed the same shade as the leaves of her tree in autumn. Passionate and fun, he had a sense of roguish charm she admired. Only later, with child, did she discover the depths of her error. A creature of nature, Eladrayil could not abandon her child, however malformed, however reptilian. She could only be true to her love of the child. Eventually her child grew up - hateful, rejected by all the creatures of the forest. The wyrmling left a grieving mother, alone, unable to leave her tree to seek her half-blood daughter.
-----
Yes, a dryad would never KNOWINGLY bed an evil dragon. But dragons are spell casters and many can and have taken human form... is it such a stretch that they might play such a cruel trick on good creature of the forest?
- Ashavan
I conceed. I'm evidently either 1) not making my point well enough or 2) that people are just too used to the far-fetched unbelieveable characters that have become a staple of the magazines. I enjoy the old monsters of D&D and the older style of play to much I guess. Which I am evidently not going to get from the pages of the magazine I once enjoyed reading any time in the near or even distance future. Be well all. Enjoy the circus for what it is.
Jason Dooley
jdrastus@hotmail.com
2) that people are just too used to the far-fetched unbelieveable characters that have become a staple of the magazines.
Creatures without context are unbelieveable, with context as Koldoon so eloquently pointed out a whole lot can be believed.
As DM's our business is the suspension of disbelief.
I conceed. I'm evidently either 1) not making my point well enough or 2) that people are just too used to the far-fetched unbelieveable characters that have become a staple of the magazines. I enjoy the old monsters of D&D and the older style of play to much I guess. Which I am evidently not going to get from the pages of the magazine I once enjoyed reading any time in the near or even distance future. Be well all. Enjoy the circus for what it is.Jason Dooley
jdrastus@hotmail.com
Hey JD,
I actually thought you made your point very well. I don't think you have to concede anything. It's obvious that you love this game, and you are very passionate about the core creatures, etc.
I, for one, am just as passionate about the core creatures too. . . I just also happen to enjoy seeing new things in the magazine too.
And as far as the content goes, the staff have stated (somewhere, can't remember) that they are using the Age of Worms to revisit alot of the staple creatures from the core rulebooks. I think this is going to be cool, too.
I'm especially looking forward to the adventure with the Doppelganger thieves guild (or something similar to that). It should be sweet.
Theoretical or Theatrical? I completely understand that there are times a certain adventure needs a character that stands out from the rest of the adventure, be he physically, emotionally, or mentally twisted. Take a sorcerer or warlock for example that acquired the fiendish side/template by either his blood or poking his nose in books and spells he didn't or shouldn’t have in the first place but because of some greedy or over-zealous nature did anyway. But there are just some creatures/characters that just SCREAM, “Hey look at me I’m over here! I’m the freaky whatchamawhozit meant to distract you from what could otherwise be a good adventure!” No offense to the writers any but I’m beginning to wonder if Halaster the Mad Mage isn’t involved in some point of the publishing process, or maybe its David Bowie as Jareth from the movie Labyrinth singing, “Dance Magic Dance.” (On a side note just to mention it now that song is stuck in my head now.) Though I suppose Labyrinth is a bad example of twisted and far-fetched not being viable as a good adventure. This sort of leads me back to the point where-in if the ENTIRE adventure is just as twisted then by all means throw as many warped monsters as you can in there. But a more serious adventure, one with truly dark overtone to it, sometimes the oldies are the goldies.
I've come to realize that in my thread I've come about as a real hard ass and probably a good bit of the narrowminded fool that is trying his best to slay a fictional dragon of his own making. I assure you this is not the case. I do enjoy the creativity of the authors and yes I do actually smile and laugh while reading a good bit of the magazines, advertizments not withstanding of course. So please bear with this devil's advocate and the now 45 posts rant that I have started. I never realized that what I started it would get this kind of attention. I only continue this not to offend anyone but to help keep on a course what I think is a good thing in the D&D world and to demonstrate the pride that a good number of people hold in their games and what they've grown up with. Thank you for bearing with me for 45 plus posts and thank you the editors for putting up with this fool.
or maybe its David Bowie as Jareth from the movie Labyrinth singing, “Dance Magic Dance.” (On a side note just to mention it now that song is stuck in my head now.) Though I suppose Labyrinth is a bad example of twisted and far-fetched not being viable as a good adventure.
LOL. . . great, now it's stuck in my head too. . .
"And baby says. . ."
"*gurgle gurgle*"
JD,
Don't sweat it...any good post here gets dissected, beaten, set on fire, quenched, put away for a while, resurrected, and it's only if you make personal attacks against someone that Erik comes along and drives a stake through its heart.
I think you make a good point and you articulate your position very well. Gamers just like to argue. The threads here are nothing compared the moronic e-shouting that goes on in Sports Fans threads...at least here the people are smarter and can usually spell.... :-)
or maybe its David Bowie as Jareth from the movie Labyrinth singing, “Dance Magic Dance.” (On a side note just to mention it now that song is stuck in my head now.) Though I suppose Labyrinth is a bad example of twisted and far-fetched not being viable as a good adventure.LOL. . . great, now it's stuck in my head too. . .
"And baby says. . ."
"*gurgle gurgle*"
oooh - you're evil. Now it's in my head too.
Fortunately I loved the movie.
JD - I'm working on a number of queries... I'll see if I can go for some down home classic monster goodness in one of them for you!
- Ashavan