_vol_3_num_38.jpg)
Apparently Marvel has announced - or at least is taking orders for - a new sourcebook on the Avengers. Good! That should cover a lot of ground and combined with the X-Men book that's already out and the Spider-Man book coming soon that really just leaves the FF as the last of the big four classic groupings not covered.
Yeah ... yeah ... so they took orcs out of the Monster Manual. Drow too. It's the "50th anniversary of the game" edition and they took two pretty significant D&D monsters out of the monster book.
Now I've read massive discussion threads online about how this is good or bad and watched some takes on YouTube as well. I've seen WOTC's sort-of-stated position that "if it's a playable race in the PHB then it's not a monster in the MM" which is just a ridiculous take. Let's look at why:
First up there is a set of generic NPC statblocks in it which are pretty much human. The suggestion is that one can just reskin those as an orc commoner or wizard or whatever. Except that there is nothing provided to further customize them by species such as orcs, say, seeing in the dark, or being tougher than a human, or perhaps going berserk or hitting harder in some way.
So what are we trying to do here?
If the point of the book is to provide the numbers a DM needs to run opposition for their party of player characters then there should be ready-to-go stats for all of the typical D&D monsters. I shouldn't have to make calculations or edits or apply templates for the typical common versions of these things. If this is a great approach then why not use it for other beasties too? How about a single "dragon" statblock for each age category and then just reskin it by saying what color it is and changing up what kind of damage the breath weapon does? You could do the same thing for giants and many demons and devils as well.
Except the point of the monster book is to provide a variety of interesting things for players to encounter. Quite a bit of time they will end up fighting but not always. But if they do end up opposing each other then mechanical differences matter a great deal - even if it's not a straight-up combat. Does this thing have a high save vs. charm abilities? How about AoE damage spells? Does it get by with a higher armor class or is it a huge block of hit points? Does it have any special senses? Immunities? What is it good at? What is it terrible at? All of this matters.
Taking iconic D&D "monsters" out of the core D&D monster book is a terrible decision made for no solid reason.
Secondly I saw some discussion of how the tastes of modern players are different than they were years ago which is why Orcs are a playable race - players today, mainly younger players in this discussion, expect different things in their fantasy. Sure, that's fine - we've had half-orcs in the game from very early on and it's not a huge leap to just go full-orc. That doesn't concern me a great deal. But D&D is it's own fantasy "thing" at this point with its own settings and assumptions and expectations and one of those is that orcs are a very common low-level opponent and Drow are a pretty common mid to high level opponent. Adding in some new player options - sure. Taking DM options away? Why? How does it make the game better? I have yet to hear how this makes for a better game.
World of Warcraft is often cited as an example of how players have come to see orcs as a playable race. Sure, they are in that game and that spilling over into D&D really isn't a huge problem. But if one plays an Alliance character you will be fighting orcs in great numbers in the game. So why do we only get one part of that situation and not the other?
Next up I believe that organized intelligent races as enemies are hugely important to a D&D campaign. Sure, the big monsters are cool but infiltrating the underground Drow city full of a variety of dark elf types is a huge challenge. Orcs, Drow, Goblins, Bugbears, Giants ... all of these should have multiple statblocks reflecting different roles in whatever civilization they have - not fewer, and not "zero". Sure there can be a basic Orc Warrior entry but then there could also be Orc Berserker, Orc Ambusher, Orc Fire Wizard, Orc Priest of X, Orc Necromancer, Orc Greater Chieftain, etc. Drow could have similar takes and specialists. This has been a concept going back to AD&D even if it was often "for every 50 orcs there is a boss that fights as a hobgoblin and for every 100 there is a big boss that fights as an ogre".
Third edition pretty much went back to one entry per monster but then had a bunch of templates you could add to these statblocks for the weird stuff but it also had a the option for adding class levels to monsters which opened up a huge number of options by turning the PHB into a monster options book as well. Now granted, you had to do the work ahead of time but on the upside you could end up with the Fiendish Orc Priest of Gruumsh who had a magic item he could use and 7 levels of cleric so it was a lot of fun with a bit of prep.
Fourth edition went with my favorite approach to this by including no less than 7 statblocks for orcs alone: Orc Drudge, Orc Warrior, Orc Raider, Orc Berserker, Orc Eye of Gruumsh, Orc Bloodrager, and Orc Chieftain, tactics for each type, sample encounter groups for various levels, and a list of results for an Orc Lore check at various DCs!
But sure, just taking them out is much better.
(Drow have 4 entries + bonus info in MM1. They get more later. Goblins get 7. Hobgoblins get 7. Humans get 6)
The 2014 5th Edition Monster Manual carried this forward with 4 distinct statblocks for Orcs and Drow. Goblins were down to 2 and Hobgoblins had 3.
So yes, this is a weird direction to take. As a DM more mechanically distinct representations of a type of monster give me more options to work with when placing that monster in my campaign. That helps me differentiate "a patrol of" vs. "a camp of" vs. "a city of" as my players journey around the setting. Having some other ways to adjust them as well like templates or level adjustments or size adjustments just enhances those selections, and even if I don't intend to use goblins in this campaign, reskinning is only made better with more complimentary types - those 4E goblins made a mean band of gnomes if the PC's got on the wrong side of them.
Give me more monsters - not less, especially in the "Monster Manual" that so many campaigns will be based on. Taking them out means that if I want to run old adventures (like I am doing) using the 2024 rules I have to either sub in another statblock (hopefully not one I'm going to be using in the same adventure), make up my own entirely (seems kind of stupid to have to do this for orcs of all things), or I have to fall back on the 2014 version since this edition is Totally Backwards Compatible. This feels like a lot of effort for something as common as "orcs" in a D&D campaign - because they should have just been in the MM to begin with.
Finally, The idea that being a playable race should mean no entry in the monster book is just a strange take. No other game does this.
(Honestly, think about how many times Klingons end up fighting Klingons in the shows and movies.)
Again, no other game takes this stance because no one feels like it is necessary or improves the game.
Yet here we are. Thankfully Tales of the Valiant does include a couple of entries for Orc in the Monster Vault (Drow too) so we will just continue using that for this campaign.
There are a lot of great superhero RPGs out there right now:
EN World does this every year and I usually try to comment on them. I'm running a little late but I thought it was worth bringing up. The list and discussion is here.
10 - Starfinder 2E: Well I own a PDF of 1E but that's it and I've never run or played it so while I'm very aware of it I am not feeling a ton of anticipation. The straight up fantasy-in-space thing just has never really been my thing despite a love for Rifts and 40K and the occasional D&D/Gamma World crossover back when. I'm not sure why but I think a lot of it is the setting - expanding outward from their fantasy planet while leaving a big gap in recorded history as far as what happened to the place just does nothing for me. Maybe it's topo generic-feeling. So many other interesting settings out there that mix magic and tech - this one just never clicked for me.
9 - Alien Evolved: Another new edition of a game I haven't played. We don't do a lot of horror here and if we did I'd probably lean more towards something like Mothership but I haven't done anything with that one either so ... no real anticipation here either.
8 -13th Age Second Edition: Well I did the Kickstarter for this one so yeah, I'm interested. Some genres just click with you and D&D-style fantasy will always be one of those for me. I liked 13th Age when it came out but I never ran it. I will make room to at least give it a tryout this time as I like what I see in the previews. It's just different enough to make it interesting. So yes, "anticipated" for sure.
7 - Coriolis The Great Dark: Well if you either haven't heard of it or weren't paying attention to it ... at all ... it's hard to say you were anticipating it. I've heard the name over the years and after perusing the Kickstarter page it looks interesting. I'm getting Expanse vibes from it and that's not a bad thing. I'm just not sure my players would choose it for "dark exploratory sci-fi game" over say 40K Wrath and Glory. It was not "anticipated" but I'll keep an eye on it.
6 - Dolmenwood: I did the Kickstarter here too so yes, it's definitely anticipated. It's another OSR thing but it has what looks to be an interesting setting and a lot of support material. I think it's a sandboxy campaign one could finish, to some degree, and not just another generic fantasy world. It's a big forest with specific inhabitants and an English folklore-y background and that approach and the art really pulled me in - all of the art on this post is from Dolmenwood.
5 - Discworld: I love the Discworld series of books and I've been reading them since the 80's but I've never felt compelled to make it an RPG setting. Even when the GURPS version came out I didn't really feel the need to get it, run it, or play it, and that is still true today. I don't think anyone could run it the way Pratchett wrote it and it's just not going to feel right in my opinion. Humor is a huge part of these books and running a comedy RPG that everyone at the table finds funny is damn near impossible in my experience. I've been very aware of this new edition as a big time Kickstarter but I have no interest in it as a game.
4 - Draw Steel (the MCDM RPG): I became aware of this one only after the Kickstarter had run and I will say I am interested in seeing how it comes out as a lot of the descriptions of the rules look really interesting. For something that originated with D&D it looks like it's dumping or changing a lot of the core D&D concepts and I do wonder how that will go over with people who came in with 5E. I'd say it's "anticipated" here now.
3 - Daggerheart: Never heard of it, don't know anything about it. Looking at the web page doesn't tell me enough about how it works, what it aims to do, or how it's different from the endless supply of other fantasy RPGs to make me want to dig into it beyond that. So no, not anticipated.
2 - Cosmere: I am certainly aware of this one after the Kickstarter hype but I haven't read enough Brandon Sanderson to care. I can't see much about the mechanics but it looks like it uses standard RPG dice. Yet another fantasy RPG ... I don't have any attachment to the books so I'm going to give this one a pass. Not anticipated here.
1 - Legend in the Mist: I know City of Mist has had gained some attention - lord knows I see enough ads for it online - but I haven't played or run it, don't own it, and the modern urban fantasy thing is just not my genre. It looks fairly FATE-y or Apocalypse World-y and that's fine but this new version says it's a rustic fantasy using a similar system and ... just not my thing man. I would probably play it if I encountered someone excited about running it but this is not a game I'm going to drive with my players. So no, not anticipated here.
Things not on this list that I am anticipating:
Yeah I'm still running that. We did take a break while I was dealing with the other stuff but we have started back up and Session 16 will happen this weekend barring extended weather complications. They actually made it into the Temple Proper last session in a way I have never seen before. There were several highlights (including an illusion that fooled everyone for a bit) but nailing multiple party members with a lightning bolt -twice- was particularly enjoyable. If the old bounce-it-off-the-walls rules were still a thing they would have been in serious trouble. The players take on it is available here. I am looking forward to the next visit as they try to figure out where they are and what is going on in the temple.
Beyond that I haven't done a whole lot else. With one game running every weekend there is not much need for active development on another. I offered to split our time between two games (alternating weekends) if it would make scheduling easier for some of my players but it was universally rejected - they want to stay focused on the one game. So for now that's what we do.
I have gotten some Kickstarter stuff in and there is probably more on the way but for now it's mostly being set aside for future use.
I had started working on some posts last month after taking a break and then things just started to come up.
My father had been fighting cancer for several months. A year ago everything was fine - especially considering my parents age. Then as the 2024 progressed it went rapidly downhill. Over the course of six months we went from "something is wrong" to "cancer" to "hospice care" and a hospital bed in the living room as he could no longer climb the stairs. Then in early November he lost consciousness for a few days and left us on a Saturday morning. It's not an easy thing even when you know where things are headed. There's "this is going to happen" and then there is "it's happened" and crossing that boundary is big. I don't just mean myself here - my mom had to deal with this and after being together for over 60 years she gets to contemplate going on alone. It's a hard thing.
Yes, my parents got married a long time ago and stayed together for the whole ride - more than I have managed to do - and that means I have had both parents my whole life and my kids have had all of their grandparents their whole lives until this year. Now in 2024 they have lost both grandfathers which is not a great thing to look back on.
The main outcome of this day-to-day has been that mom needs more help with things, particularly all of the things dad used to handle around the house or with the cars or with the technology side of things. That mainly lands on me and so there has and still is some adjustment to how to handle those things and there are still all of the other things to deal with too - accounts and stuff and what mom wants to do with the house and the rest of her life. These are all new experiences but I'm trying to make it more of a positive by looking ahead to how I (well, me and the wife so "we") can try to make it easier down the road for everyone ourselves. I don't have to like it all but I can at least try to learn something from it.
