Request: Better Monster Signal:Noise or Information Design

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

I didn't expect that when I argued for "list everything" I had to specify "Sharks need the trait No Legs".

Sharks need the trait No Legs.

I'll go even further: DF has not enough info on legs for my taste, not too much. Horses should have Vulnerable Legs, so that it doesn't take the full HP/2 injury to cripple them.

I would like it if monsters had more info about their habitats and ecology, social organization, goals, number appearing, treasure collecting habits, etc., but I recognize that DF Monsters is already printed and that page constraints were a big concern--it's water under the bridge. And the newer books from Gaming Ballistic such as Serpents of Legend are actually fantastic at this anyway.

But sharks should have No Legs because they do. If they didn't I could roll my eyes and say "obviously they do," and it wouldn't hurt the game beyond annoying me, but there's no reason to omit it. If you're worried about page space you should look at how Garden of Evil handles plants: defines a meta-trait called Flora which includes traits like Doesn't Breath and No Blood, etc., and uses it for all the plants. You can do that for Shark and just say it has trait: Fish. Now you've got the best of both worlds: it officially has no legs (see Fish definition on pg. XYZ), and it doesn't offend anyone who likes short stat blocks.

[Armin]

Originally Posted by beaushinkle

As for the variations of "briefly described monster descriptions means the monster is too simple or two-dimensional"; ie, a DFRPG mummy is this complex being that with motivations, variable emotions, and complex behaviors while the OSE mummy is a bag of hitpoints that attacks on sight, fights to the death, and has some disease/fear effects.

I don't think this is fair! The OSE mummy doesn't specifically say that it fights to the death, has simple emotions, and is a bag of hitpoints, so why is that the default assumption? When left unspecified, the GM decides the characterization of the mummy, either making it up or pulling from other sources (fiction, random tables, other game mechanics like reaction rolls, etc). If the GM in a OSE game decides that the mummy is bland, that's on them!

There is a huge difference between decide and make up. If the details are there, I can see what the intent was, and that intent can be very informative. I can then decide to use that information or not.

If the details are not there, I can't decide to use them at all. I just have to make something up. And on the spot, my ability to make it up may be limited, especially without some seeds to help get me started.

Many people can't just decide to be creative and make something up. Not everyone is good at improvisational creativity.

But I agree that the way the traits are organized is often not particularly helpful, and sometimes seems to actively hinder usability. I do quite like your organization, with Senses, Offense, Defense, etc; that seems like a very useful breakdown.