Sunday, August 30, 2020

There is More 5e Content on Kobalds

First, a note.  5th edition's Volo's Guide to Monsters has more information about the kobald.  You can read the whole entry through this site.  Here's a screen shot of the first two pages; there are 8 pages in all:


I have to tell you, I'm still not very impressed.  The exhausting and annoying issue with all this content is the lack of details that would be of tremendous use.  Telling us that kobalds are skilled at tunnelling, and that they make small-diameter tunnels (I thought of that too) does not describe the exact size of tunnel or how much they can tunnel in the space of a day.  We're told it's "respectable." What the hell use is that?

There is this endless litany of where kobalds are and what little skills they have, but none of these produce a "feel" for a kobald's mentality.  Wikipedia does better!  Though, the wikipedia entry will disappoint, if D&D kobald is what you're looking for.  A problem I have with all of the 5e monsters is "splatter design."  We're told a dozen things in a short 260 word passage; and when we have eight pages, do we carefully investigate and expand those things?  No, we add a hundred other things: they're cowards, they loot, they're good with tools, they don't shun arcane magic, they're clever as crafters and strategists, they understand their actions contribute to the group, their plans always include an escape route, they are rarely affectionate, they don't have funerals, they're cautious, they get angry, they fear, they're this, they're that ... and this just goes on and on for eight pages.  Imagine reading a sociology textbook that just gives a long list of what humans sometimes do, believe or think.  It's tremendously boring, it keeps returning to the same theme over and over and when you're done reading it all, you know about as much about using kobalds in a game setting as when you started.

I mean seriously, take the bit about them being good with tools.  When are we going to use that, exactly, as a DM?  Have the party come along to find the kobalds fixing a cart, so we can say, "As you watch the kobalds, you're really amazed at how good they are with those tools."  Or maybe the party has caught some kobald prisoners, and now the wagon is broken, so we can tell the party, "You know what?  Get the kobald to fix it.  They're really good with tools."

You know who else is good with tools?  Humans who are trained to use tools.  Thank heaven that because those are so rare, we have murderous kobalds to help us.

Of course, more of this is to help out a player who is running a kobald, than it is a book about monsters.  The passages are really more to help the player know what to say, cookie-cutter like, when it comes time to "role-play" a kobald.  Make sure that you acknowledge that you're weak, that you're not that clever, and to get personally affronted easily ... and oh, don't forget about that ever-critical tool ability, plus a willingness to loot and find escape routes.  There, fleshing out the character, done.

It's like explaining the character of Willie Loman from Death of a Salesman thusly: you're a man, you're married, you've got a suit and tie, you carry a briefcase, you're a salesman, you have two sons, you talk out loud to people you used to know, that aren't there now.  Got it?  Great.  Start talking.

This is my favorite bit:


There are 20 names here.  20.  Arranged as an alphabetical list in two columns, with plenty of white space and numbered to save us the trouble of having to pick.  I've played this game a long time, I've never needed a name for a kobald; though I think, if I really needed one, I could randomly pick a consonant in my mind, randomly pick a vowel to follow it, then randomly pick another consonant.  Something like, I don't know, "Bob."  Bob the Kobald.  Fits fine.

Later on in the description, we find out that kobalds have cellars and sleeping areas, and mines, and mushroom farms.  Under "mushroom farms," we're told kobalds aren't good at agriculture.  It might interest people to know that underground mushroom farming is "simple" if you don't need to make money and you absolutely do not depend on them for food.  Otherwise, it is labour intensive and frustrating, since one small contamination can spread like wildfire and destroy the whole crop.  Ah, but maybe kobalds can eat anything.  We'll never know, because we spent at least a full page describing how kobalds make and use the same traps that every other humanoid in D&D uses.

I don't want to be petty, but eight pages of this content and there isn't one piece of information that isn't rehashed from books 35 years old, that I can use.  Back in the 90s, I could open a splat-book and at least steal some bits and pieces here and there, to fit into some table or redesign into a concept that would expand my system.  But with this 5e stuff, it's just old stuff rewritten, telling me that deadfalls are common traps, that kobalds attack light sources in combat, that they use poison, that tactics include ambushes ... it is just cliche after cliche for eight goddamned pagesIt's a little annoying.

12 comments:

  1. "it is just cliche after cliche for eight goddamned pages. It's a little annoying."

    This sums up a lot of the "fluff" writing in 5E. IMO the rules are alright. Not great. I've had fun playing 5E. But the system is not the best version of D&D out there.

    The fluff, though, is 100% horrible. I can't think of any examples of PC or NPC/Monster fluff in the books that felt evocative to me.

    I've also had a few players who felt the fluff must be respected as gospel, since it came down from WotC like Moses with the tablets of commandments. I have been told I was playing a dragonborn wrong. I laughed at that person. If I'm going to play a dragon-man, I'll play my dragonman the way I want, not the way Mike Mearls or whoever thinks I should play it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “Playing a dragonborn wrong.” Or playing a kobold wrong. Or playing a...human wrong?

      “My human eats the orcs he just killed.” Why would you do that? “To save rations; I mean, they’re just meat right?” Um...you’re horrifying your companions and aren’t you Lawful Good? “So what? I’m not torturing them...they’re dead! Plus they taste like chicken; I invite the other PCs to partake. Heck, I’d like to take some of the meat and cure it for jerky...might be able to sell it as ‘iron rations’ or something later. Can I wear an orc helmet? I like how carcass smells.” You are playing your culture wrong!

      *sigh*

      There’s too much stupid in D&D these days. Too Much Stupid. Essays like this on how to be a cardboard cutout (which is what it boils down to) is only slightly less offensive than rules provided to imagine your character as a cartoon avatar (which is what the PHB is).

      F all that. If I’m going to be a cartoon, I’d rather just play a superhero RPG.

      Delete
  2. Wow. All the way to cannibalism to make a point, huh?

    There is too much stupid in D&D. Not just these days. The only argument you can come up with as a DM is that the character is an imposed, non-rational, psychologically ignorant and deliberately obtuse to all written drama arbitrary personality type?

    Please, point to Aeschylus, Aristophanes or Euripedes, where the subject of cannibalism came up and their argument was that the protagonist shouldn't because they're not the "type."

    Action dictates character, NOT the other way around. Let's at least acknowledge that the FUCKING STUPIDITY in D&D "these days" was gestated out of an incomprehensible shithole miasma of boiling pus. Can we AT LEAST do that?

    For myself, the argument against the example you name would not be, "You are playing your culture wrong." It would be, the flood of evil pouring out of this tiny point in the Prime Material Plane rouses Ishtar out of a good sleep and causes her to think, "What was that now?"

    Followed by,

    "Then two female bears came out of the woods and tore up [the character]." And Ishtar nodded, and went back to sleep.

    Evil begats consequence.

    My problem with telling us how kobalds behave is not that it is done; hell, we have three or four social sciences and at least two hard sciences designed to tell us how and why humans act. My problem is that 5e, and the rest of D&D, does it so BADLY.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excuse me...I’m not saying YOUR essay is telling us how to be a cardboard cutout. I’m talking about the 8 pages on “what a kobold is.” Apologies if that was unclear...you just got me mad at 5E (again).

      Yes, I am exactly on the same page with you of “5e, and the rest of D&D” doing it BADLY. But...at least with regard to earlier editions...there was so much left unsaid that individuals were forced to consider and reflect and research and learn in order to develop their game. If they wished to develop their game. Which they did if they had a love for the game and it’s potential.

      Now we (or, perhaps, “they”) are simply trying to make a better more colorful cardboard cutout to cut down with the imaginary sword. That’s not a deepening of the game.

      History and physiology (nurture and nature, I suppose) are the things that create psychology. Why are kobolds good with tools? Because God (or their god) touched them on the shoulder? Ok, I guess that’s okay. But it’s more interesting to know HOW. I believe in God. I believe in evolution. I believe in God working through evolution. So how does that show up with kobolds?

      Give me the facts. Give me the history and the physiology and then I can draw the logical conclusions that lead me to the result...AND I can also account for possible deviations (why one tribe of kobolds is POOR at using tools and how that might impact the campaign world and specifically the players).

      5E is not for deep thinkers. 5E is for making money in the most expedient way possible. It’s not for the stupid, it’s for the slothful. Damn people are so inclined towards the quick solution.

      I mean, they SEEM to be based on the evidence of their continued fleecing.

      [man, I am in a foul mood today]

      Delete
    2. OH...and regarding cannibalism to make a point: *sigh* My ability to be subtle suffers when I feel the need to crack heads. It is to my own detriment, I realize.

      Delete
  3. JB, you have got to know that mentioning alignment in any context is going to get me reaching for my rabies injection.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL. Just can’t help myself sometimes.
      ; )

      Delete
  4. What did you say yesterday ... "Bad for the soul"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just did a kobold dungeon based on the rough feel for kobolds from my 3rd edition plus experience. And concluded the stats (no attribute but dexterity being above 10, int at 6ish) do not match remotely. I tweaked a few abilities just out of efficiency, but there's a lot of dissonance that can really only be solved by pretty major rewrites that I don't have the energy to do at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hello Alexis,

    I'm surprised and curious about your reaction on a character practicing cannibalism.
    You've said before that you do not use alignment. Thus, no good, no evil, at least inherently, nyet ? Moreover, cannibalism is an accepted, real part of many cultures in our past.
    But here you consider that those actions are evil, and evil enough to make a "flood of evil" able to wake up a goddess, who then promptly obliterate the cannibal.
    So, knowing your attention to details and coherence, I'd imagine that there should be no cannibalism whatsoever on the world except in places under the firm dominion of evil gods. And no one could survive if the only food available was the flesh of the dead (except if there is some condition, like "must do it for survival", but then "for resource conservation" is meant to be bad and evil, and it's strange).

    By no mean I want to troll. I'm genuinely curious, as cannibalism in itself doesn't strike me as inherently good or evil - it is only through cultural lenses that it become so. And I'd totally get that the cultural map is influenced by the active gods of the area, so that the poor man has been struck not because it was an Evil act, but because it was evil in the eyes of the local goddess, thus culture.

    Sorry if this come out bad, I'm at work right now.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Vlad,

    I don't have the least problem with cannibalism. However, it is plain in JB's example that the player is making a mockery of cannibalism and real human emotion, for the lols or to achieve a shocked reaction from the DM and other players.

    Whatever might be the accepted parts of cannibalism in human past, the player at my table isn't a cannibal; and wouldn't have come from a background of cannibalism-as-ritual (which, in any case, would have been treated solemnly and not as a knock-the-chip-off-my-shoulder challenge). Meaning, the player doesn't give a rat's ass about decorum or decency, so long as they can act out.

    I don't associate with people like this. Ishtar is a metaphor for, I boot him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alexis,

    Thank you for the explanation. I didn't feel that from JB's example at all, but it may be because I'm neither used to such behavior, nor very perceptive on the social side.
    With your added precision, I understand the answer you gave.

    Out of the airlock, he goes. Maybe after a little discussion and a second chance, but as I said, I'm not used to them, so maybe this kind of people is always like that.

    Anyway, case closed, understanding reached. Thank you !

    ReplyDelete