So it's been a while since the last time I did one of my examinations of D&D monster statblocks! The first (and thus far only) one was... by Jove, six whole months ago! Go check that out if you want my preliminary thoughts on a) why I'm even looking at different monster stat presentations in the first place and b) my thoughts on the presentation that OD&D, the Basic line, and AD&D 1e go for. Today though we're just gonna be looking at how monsters were presented in AD&D 2e, and whether there is anything worthwhile to glean from them.
Like I mentioned in the previous post, I'll be using the owlbear as the stat block of choice, since it appears in every single edition of the game. Here is the owlbear from the AD&D Monstrous Manual from 1994!
Aw jeeze... that sure just ratchets up the density that I didn't like about the 1e presentation. Uhhhh but first, some general comments!
AD&D 2e standardizes the structure of monster entries like no previous edition has. Each monster takes at least one full page, with only very few prominent monsters or types of monsters having more than that (like dragons, giants, beholders, etc). The monster description is no longer a mostly free form paragraph that includes both gameplay information and description/lore; instead, the description is cordoned off into four distinct sections: an opening short description, a combat section, a "habitat/society" section, and an ecology section. AD&D 2e definitely leaned into naturalism with its monsters. Also, every single monster has an illustration, which I for one really appreciate if for no reason other than I just love monster art. A lot of the art in the Monstrous Manual is from Tony Diterlizzi, who for me is the face of AD&D 2e, for both his part in the Planescape setting and his monster art in general.
Also, not really related to the discussion at hand, but the page directly opposite this owlbear from Diterlizzi (which I am sorry to say is not one the better illustrations of the beast) is one of my favorite monster illustrations for D&D ever.
Tony Diterlizzi's otyugh illustration is the best drawing that that creature has ever had, and you can't change my mind!! It's just so full of personality, so scuzzy and gross but with a kind of puppy-like cuteness. Just love it! That's the power of an illustration; it really does say a thousand words.
But yeah back to the descriptions. These sections are mostly there to fill space, if I'm being completely honest. I don't think the reader really needs to be told that owlbears "inhabit the depths of tangled forests in temperate climes, as well as subterranean labyrinths, living in caves or hollow stumps." It's just a wordy jumble that says what the DM reader already knew: owlbears live in forests because that's where owls and bears live, but also I can just put them in my dungeon because I want to. It's not exactly rocket science to come to that conclusion. Most of the descriptions in 2e were like this, and while there are for sure interesting elements buried in those verbose paragraphs, for the most part much of the information isn't useful. I wouldn't even say it makes for good reading since a lot of it isn't very conceptually dense. This isn't me saying its worthless though! I have a copy of the Monstrous Manual and I love reading it and perusing it. I just don't think its the most economical use of space.
The ultimate reason why monster descriptions were formatted like this is because of the shift in how AD&D 2e brought its monsters to the plucky monster-loving DM. Rather than publishing a Monster Manual with the release of the edition, they chose to release "Monstrous Compendiums" that were collections of loose leaf paper that you would put into a binder. The Monstrous Manual I've been referencing was published later, and just brought a few of those Compendiums into one hard-cover book. The idea behind these Compendiums was that the DM would be able to pick and choose which monsters they needed or wanted, and then just put those into their own personal little bestiary in their game binder. The only problem with this is that each page was printed on both sides with a monster each, so it was a tad impractical to put only the monsters you wanted or needed in there. In reality, I'm fairly certain that this was a plan by TSR to cut costs and sell more monsters; it's why they produced dozens of Monstrous Compendiums, many of them associated with TSR's new campaign settings. Born at the confluence of corporate cost-cutting/profit-seeking and a presentation of making monster selection better for the DM, 2e AD&D produced monster presentation that was... relatively sterile and static.
How about we take a look at the stat block itself?
Just like with the text descriptions, 2e separates the stat block into two distinct sections. The former is mostly environmental/ecological information, while the latter is combat information. I actually... rather like this. I don't think the environmental information should be at the top since it isn't important for me to reference that owlbears live in temperate forests when I'm actively running the game, but I don't think it is a bad addition! To me, it evokes an RPG bestiary as a kind of field guide, providing quick information for a traveler or perhaps even a dungeon delver. I like blurring the distinction between an in-universe object and a game object.
A number of the somewhat problematic entries on previous stat blocks have been moved to this section: frequency, intelligence, treasure type, and alignment. I still don't think frequency is at all important, and I stand by thinking treasure type is a confusing presentation of an important concept, but otherwise I think it was a good choice to move those to this first section. The other elements of the opening section all relate to the ecology of the creature: climate/terrain, organization, activity cycle, and diet. I think some of these are more useful than others. Climate/terrain is probably the least useful. It either presents information that is obvious or reiterates information that would already be known from where the creature is appearing, its inclusion in random encounter tables, or whatever is mentioned in the description. Activity cycle is... a very interesting choice, and one that I would be tempted to include. It wouldn't be necessary for all creatures, but noting that a given creature is diurnal or nocturnal etc etc could be very interesting! You could easily make that relevant to the players by tying their activity cycle to whether or not they are in their lair or by giving penalties to creatures that have been awake too long. I just don't think that needs to be codified for every creature.
Organization and diet are the most useful of the new additions, in my opinion. Diet I am a little uncertain on, since oftentimes it can be easily gleaned from description or intuition, but I think it could be useful to note what a given creature eats, if only for that good ol' verisimilitude and for reference for whenever players attempt food-related interactions with creatures (which has happened a not insignificant amount of times in my games). Organization is the most useful in my opinion, but I don't think it should be presented like that. Please just roll it up into Number Appearing, it means literally the same thing. Or well, it would if you actually based the number appearing entry on anything. The 2e owlbear says that their organization is as a pack, but then the number appearing is 1 unless they are in a lair. A lone predator does not a pack make! I think if I were to include organization at all, it would be on the number appearing line to provide more concise information for why that is the number appearing.
The rest of the stat block is mostly the same as the previous editions, just with some reordering. XP has been included like in the BECMI line, which is useful (though I am increasingly interested in scrapping XP for monsters and just having it be treasure if I'm completely honest), and... oh my gosh the mad men they finally did it. They actually put Morale on the monster stat block! I really harped on morale being included when I made my last post, mostly just because I think it is the most important part of old school style combat, so I was appalled when 1e AD&D didn't include it in monster entries. Or well, not appalled, because I already knew that that was the case just... it makes the 1e stat blocks really bad for reference. Oh also technically THAC0 is a new addition in the 2e stat block, which does make combat easier than the flipping back and forth that previous editions had, but I don't use THAC0 so I don't feel much of then need to comment on it /shrug
In conclusion:
AD&D 2e went really far into how much they can try and cram into a single page of monster information. Most of it isn't very useful, or reiterates stuff that is mentioned elsewhere, or can be easily inferred without needing to be stated. However, I think including ecological information is useful, fun, and brings an element of verisimilitude! I would be more exacting about what ecological information I include, but I would be inclined to include it. I appreciate the descriptive terms for entries like Morale and Intelligence, and I would be inclined to include descriptive terms for things like those in my own ideal stat block. Also I think there are interesting lessons to learn from the strange attempt a new format for monsters that was the Monstrous Compendiums; there are definitely more interesting directions to take an RPG bestiary than just a big book full of big stat blocks, long descriptions, and drawings.
No comments:
Post a Comment