I am honestly wondering if D&D has already passed me by?
I was on twitter the other day and someone responded to a tweet I made about kobolds saying " I don't even know why they're in the game :)".
Instead of making a spreadsheet response I simply replied "google Tucker's Kobolds".
His response "Yeah, with orcs and goblins I've never seen a need for kobolds.".
It's really odd but there doesn't seem to be any love for the variety of old school monsters out there and a lot of people will just run games where there really isn't any real difference between any of the monsters in terms of how they act. And more players will just approach any monster as just something to kill and never avoid / parley with them.
Maybe the guy was just trolling me and succeeded in making me feel bad. But, he is a designer and selling stuff on the DM's guild and has over 5 thousand twitter followers and a successful D&D book kickstarter.
Is this the common attitude now? Have I somehow gotten into the wrong spheres on the internet? Is this some sort of meme or do a lot of people legitimately don't care about monster variety anymore? Or does everyone just hate kobolds now?
I feel like I am taking crazy pills because just a few years ago there was so much love for varied monsters with personality and now what seems like a relatively popular D&D game designer is taking the time to tell me on twitter that my favorite monster doesn't matter anymore.
I don't understand why you would consider this guy credible based on followers or kickstarter.
An opinion must stand on the merits of the argument. Did he have a compelling argument ? I know in the adventure horde of the dragon queen, kobolds play a role and are an interesting group that pose a threat. Therefore it can be done!
By that logic, there's no need of hobgoblins or bugbears, because we have orcs and ogres. They're basically the same thing in D&D, filling the same role in most combats, but just on opposite sides of the Law-Chaos divide. Indeed, if you go back to Lord of the Rings, orcs and goblinoids were just different names for the same race.
But then again, D&D is filled with overlapping races like that. What's the difference between a derro and a duegar? Why are pixies and sprites two separate races, just one with magic and one more martial? Can't you just have both be the same race with different occupations, like every other race in the game? The entire Blood War is basically just two of the same thing fighting with each other. Remember the erinyes versus succubus thing back in 2nd and 3rd edition? Pit lords and balor, imps and quasits? What's the point of having dwarven crafters in a game with tinkish mountain gnomes (or vice versa)?
If someone says "I don't know why they're in the game," what they really mean is "I don't like them in my games." They're there because they have a certain aethetic as well as story that others don't have. Every setting doesn't have to have the full set of monsters in it - it all comes down to what kind of stories you want to tell, and how you want to tell them. Kobolds fit some stories better than goblins, so you use them in those stories. For other stories, goblins fit better, so you use the gobs then. And, in some cases, you have stories about the the contrast between Law and Chaos, so you use both to highlight different sides.
So, most likely what happens here is that you have one person who's personal bias on games leaked a bit into the public sphere. That happens - the writers and developers aren't infallible, they do have different visions of the game than others.
There’s no NEED for anything in D&D. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of fun things that you can have fun with that are completely unnecessary. Kobolds are a fun opponent, and a creative DM can make them challenging and fun to a mid level party too!
Kobolds are a holes, and I love them. All those opportunities to mob a person and get pack tactics is wonderful, or almost as good have one get up in their face and others pelt them from afar.
Never underestimate a large group of kobolds when you are low level. You will not live to regret it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
They were the first monster my DM had us fight in my journey back to D&D. They will always be one of my favorites. They also almost killed me in my first game!
I still love all the monsters that were there in AD&D, and there are so many new ones to choose from. This game becomes more and more. Of everything! Nothing wrong with diversity.
Everyone can play the game however they'd like, it sounds like this gentleman was simply expressing his own opinion on having monsters that tend to overlap each other on the superficial level. You didn't quote the original tweet that he was responding to, so we can't really see what the context of the overall conversation is.
Saying we don't need kobolds because of goblins is a kin to saying we don't need elves because we have humans. If you portray them the same way there is little difference.
I do miss the older mutt like kobolds that were just crazy little terrier humanoids from earlier editions of D&D.
At the end of the day they offer a variety of beings that can be used for much the same purpose.
You didn't quote the original tweet that he was responding to, so we can't really see what the context of the overall conversation is.
It was a conversation about a different DM trying to expound their idea that the game itself and not the DM who is the "opposition" in D&D and how they as a DM is always rooting for the players. And then the Anti Kobold guy inserted himself into the conversation.
Me - "It's an interesting aspect of the game. I always want my players to know that I am legitimately trying to defeat them with my encounters. But they have the advantage of teamwork and creativity."
DM- " I consider the game/rules/scenario, not me, to be the object with agency in opposition or resistance to the players. I am just facilitating the interaction, and I'm rooting for the players (without bending the rules)."
My reply to that "My personal exception to this is kobolds. I always root for the kobolds during an encounter with higher level players."
Anti Kobolds guy- I'm the opposite. I don't even know why they're in the game :)
Me - Google Tucker's Kobolds
New cAnti Kobolds guy- For a second I thought you wrote Tucker Carlson... Pretty close. Yeah, with orcs and goblins I've never seen a need for kobolds.
He didn't seem to add anything to the conversation. He was probably just being a dick because he thought I was saying something not in lock step with a more popular twitter user. Twitter is full of those people.
The irony is that if you don't have lawful enemies like kobolds you can't actually make the game "the opposition" because there will be no mechanical reason for the monsters to use tactics and whatnot. So if your monsters just act like "whatever" you happen to need to have them act then you aren't actually giving the rules any sort of agency and the DM has even more power.
I am honestly not going to waste my time on twitter talking about D&D anymore. It's just depressing.
So, most likely what happens here is that you have one person who's personal bias on games leaked a bit into the public sphere. That happens - the writers and developers aren't infallible, they do have different visions of the game than others.
This was a great response.
I think I just need to concentrate on my own writing more.
Honestly, this seems like a bit of an unnecessary reaction to this person's responses. Just people responding to stuff that shows up in their feeds with their own opinions and ideas, which is really all twitter is.
Honestly, this seems like a bit of an unnecessary reaction to this person's responses. Just people responding to stuff that shows up in their feeds with their own opinions and ideas, which is really all twitter is.
I just kept seeing this general attitude on social media. It wasn't just about this one guy randomly swooping into a twitter convo to say "The thing you like is something there is no need for". It just seemed like a lot of people didn't understand the need for variety in D&D monsters. Frankly I think I am in the wrong social media circles for this kind of conversation.
Frankly I think I am in the wrong social media circles for this kind of conversation.
That's very likely true. Social media circles tend to be echo chambers for some idea or not. So, if you see a "general attitude," its very likely just the attitude of that particular circle, and not a wider audience.
They're kinda stupid.
I really don't like calling anyone stupid, even for something like this. Kobolds don't fit a particular media circle's mindset, therefore they don't see the need for it. I personally don't see the need for gnomes, but that doesn't mean I'm kinda stupid. It just means that I have a different view on what makes a good game in my particular gaming circle.
Frankly I think I am in the wrong social media circles for this kind of conversation.
That's very likely true. Social media circles tend to be echo chambers for some idea or not. So, if you see a "general attitude," its very likely just the attitude of that particular circle, and not a wider audience.
They're kinda stupid.
I really don't like calling anyone stupid, even for something like this. Kobolds don't fit a particular media circle's mindset, therefore they don't see the need for it. I personally don't see the need for gnomes, but that doesn't mean I'm kinda stupid. It just means that I have a different view on what makes a good game in my particular gaming circle.
That guy had no argument at all, so I'm gonna stand by my statement. It's a highly serviceable explanation for a great many things people insist on saying without any evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. They say it's better not to attribute anything to malice when it can be explained by stupidity, so I'm going with the latter.
Anyway, there are completely valid arguments for running D&D without gnomes, so there's nothing stupid about that. Bearded halflings. Who needs 'em, right?
I am honestly wondering if D&D has already passed me by?
I was on twitter the other day and someone responded to a tweet I made about kobolds saying " I don't even know why they're in the game :)".
Instead of making a spreadsheet response I simply replied "google Tucker's Kobolds".
His response "Yeah, with orcs and goblins I've never seen a need for kobolds.".
It's really odd but there doesn't seem to be any love for the variety of old school monsters out there and a lot of people will just run games where there really isn't any real difference between any of the monsters in terms of how they act. And more players will just approach any monster as just something to kill and never avoid / parley with them.
Maybe the guy was just trolling me and succeeded in making me feel bad. But, he is a designer and selling stuff on the DM's guild and has over 5 thousand twitter followers and a successful D&D book kickstarter.
Is this the common attitude now? Have I somehow gotten into the wrong spheres on the internet? Is this some sort of meme or do a lot of people legitimately don't care about monster variety anymore? Or does everyone just hate kobolds now?
I feel like I am taking crazy pills because just a few years ago there was so much love for varied monsters with personality and now what seems like a relatively popular D&D game designer is taking the time to tell me on twitter that my favorite monster doesn't matter anymore.
I like kobolds.
I don't understand why you would consider this guy credible based on followers or kickstarter.
An opinion must stand on the merits of the argument. Did he have a compelling argument ? I know in the adventure horde of the dragon queen, kobolds play a role and are an interesting group that pose a threat. Therefore it can be done!
Jesus Saves!... Everyone else takes damage.
Kobolds can be amazing monsters and have their own little niche in low level adventures.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Yes I should have kept that in mind. He didn't have any sort of argument.
I guess I just wanted validation that this wasn't a widely held view.
By that logic, there's no need of hobgoblins or bugbears, because we have orcs and ogres. They're basically the same thing in D&D, filling the same role in most combats, but just on opposite sides of the Law-Chaos divide. Indeed, if you go back to Lord of the Rings, orcs and goblinoids were just different names for the same race.
But then again, D&D is filled with overlapping races like that. What's the difference between a derro and a duegar? Why are pixies and sprites two separate races, just one with magic and one more martial? Can't you just have both be the same race with different occupations, like every other race in the game? The entire Blood War is basically just two of the same thing fighting with each other. Remember the erinyes versus succubus thing back in 2nd and 3rd edition? Pit lords and balor, imps and quasits? What's the point of having dwarven crafters in a game with tinkish mountain gnomes (or vice versa)?
If someone says "I don't know why they're in the game," what they really mean is "I don't like them in my games." They're there because they have a certain aethetic as well as story that others don't have. Every setting doesn't have to have the full set of monsters in it - it all comes down to what kind of stories you want to tell, and how you want to tell them. Kobolds fit some stories better than goblins, so you use them in those stories. For other stories, goblins fit better, so you use the gobs then. And, in some cases, you have stories about the the contrast between Law and Chaos, so you use both to highlight different sides.
So, most likely what happens here is that you have one person who's personal bias on games leaked a bit into the public sphere. That happens - the writers and developers aren't infallible, they do have different visions of the game than others.
As a GM, you can put in or remove whatever you want. Just because somebody doesn't like or understand something, doesn't mean you have to change.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
There’s no NEED for anything in D&D. That doesn’t mean there aren’t a lot of fun things that you can have fun with that are completely unnecessary. Kobolds are a fun opponent, and a creative DM can make them challenging and fun to a mid level party too!
Professional computer geek
One twitter account does not represent everyone. Individual tastes vary. I’m sure there are Twitter accounts adoring kobolds too.
Kobolds are a holes, and I love them. All those opportunities to mob a person and get pack tactics is wonderful, or almost as good have one get up in their face and others pelt them from afar.
Never underestimate a large group of kobolds when you are low level. You will not live to regret it.
"Where words fail, swords prevail. Where blood is spilled, my cup is filled" -Cartaphilus
"I have found the answer to the meaning of life. You ask me what the answer is? You already know what the answer to life is. You fear it more than the strike of a viper, the ravages of disease, the ire of a lover. The answer is always death. But death is a gentle mistress with a sweet embrace, and you owe her a debt of restitution. Life is not a gift, it is a loan."
They were the first monster my DM had us fight in my journey back to D&D. They will always be one of my favorites. They also almost killed me in my first game!
I still love all the monsters that were there in AD&D, and there are so many new ones to choose from. This game becomes more and more. Of everything! Nothing wrong with diversity.
Everyone can play the game however they'd like, it sounds like this gentleman was simply expressing his own opinion on having monsters that tend to overlap each other on the superficial level. You didn't quote the original tweet that he was responding to, so we can't really see what the context of the overall conversation is.
Saying we don't need kobolds because of goblins is a kin to saying we don't need elves because we have humans. If you portray them the same way there is little difference.
I do miss the older mutt like kobolds that were just crazy little terrier humanoids from earlier editions of D&D.
At the end of the day they offer a variety of beings that can be used for much the same purpose.
- Loswaith
It was a conversation about a different DM trying to expound their idea that the game itself and not the DM who is the "opposition" in D&D and how they as a DM is always rooting for the players. And then the Anti Kobold guy inserted himself into the conversation.
Me - "It's an interesting aspect of the game. I always want my players to know that I am legitimately trying to defeat them with my encounters. But they have the advantage of teamwork and creativity."
DM- " I consider the game/rules/scenario, not me, to be the object with agency in opposition or resistance to the players. I am just facilitating the interaction, and I'm rooting for the players (without bending the rules)."
My reply to that "My personal exception to this is kobolds. I always root for the kobolds during an encounter with higher level players."
Anti Kobolds guy- I'm the opposite. I don't even know why they're in the game :)
Me - Google Tucker's Kobolds
New cAnti Kobolds guy- For a second I thought you wrote Tucker Carlson... Pretty close. Yeah, with orcs and goblins I've never seen a need for kobolds.
He didn't seem to add anything to the conversation. He was probably just being a dick because he thought I was saying something not in lock step with a more popular twitter user. Twitter is full of those people.
The irony is that if you don't have lawful enemies like kobolds you can't actually make the game "the opposition" because there will be no mechanical reason for the monsters to use tactics and whatnot. So if your monsters just act like "whatever" you happen to need to have them act then you aren't actually giving the rules any sort of agency and the DM has even more power.
I am honestly not going to waste my time on twitter talking about D&D anymore. It's just depressing.
This was a great response.
I think I just need to concentrate on my own writing more.
I really think the guy had his arse handed to him by Kobolds badly because he figured they wouldn't be a problem.
Honestly, this seems like a bit of an unnecessary reaction to this person's responses. Just people responding to stuff that shows up in their feeds with their own opinions and ideas, which is really all twitter is.
You need to understand the fundamental reason people say things like "D&D doesn't need Kobolds."
They're kinda stupid.
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!
I just kept seeing this general attitude on social media. It wasn't just about this one guy randomly swooping into a twitter convo to say "The thing you like is something there is no need for". It just seemed like a lot of people didn't understand the need for variety in D&D monsters. Frankly I think I am in the wrong social media circles for this kind of conversation.
Yep.
That's very likely true. Social media circles tend to be echo chambers for some idea or not. So, if you see a "general attitude," its very likely just the attitude of that particular circle, and not a wider audience.
That guy had no argument at all, so I'm gonna stand by my statement. It's a highly serviceable explanation for a great many things people insist on saying without any evidence, or in spite of evidence to the contrary. They say it's better not to attribute anything to malice when it can be explained by stupidity, so I'm going with the latter.
Anyway, there are completely valid arguments for running D&D without gnomes, so there's nothing stupid about that. Bearded halflings. Who needs 'em, right?
DICE FALL, EVERYONE ROCKS!