Originally Posted by
Grey_Wolf_c
While we are back to the same old discussion on MitD's iconic status (please see the note in Section 1a: Rich's Words), at least you admit you have no actual evidence for your feelings. Still, there is no way to define "something as iconic as Tarrasque". Every single person that has ever participated in this thread could bring a list of creatures that they consider "as iconic as Tarrasque" and I doubt we would get two lists with the same names. For some, Tarrasque is as famous as dragons and beholders. For others, it is just an obscure high-level-ish creature, like barghest. For others (a rather big percentage), it is completely unknown and not iconic at all.
So your first point is essentially subjective. A proposed creature cannot be "not famous enough", and yet that is essentially what you tell us should be our guide. Point 2 is predicated on Rich lying to us, and once that door is open, this discussion is pointless, in that MitD need not fit anything at all. Every clue could be a misdirection. Point 3 is, of course, acceptable in this thread but I must say that your examples are rather strange.
I'm sorry, Jan, but you are arguing from personal conviction. It makes it very hard to have a discussion or even counter you, since it boils down to a big "because I feel so".
Nevertheless, giving it a try: Rich has turned MitD into a game. Now, you may find hard games unsatisfying, but I don't. A 4 (or 12, or 100) piece puzzle is not just silly, it is boring. I like my puzzles hard enough to retain my attention. I've watched many movies and read many books were you can guess the big secret right from the start. Some of them were enjoyable nevertheless, but in the ones that the whole idea was to keep you guessing, and yet it was obvious that the big bad was this or that guy, much of the enjoyment is lost if you can guess from the start. So quite unlike you, I reach the exact opposite of your conclusions from the same premise: MitD will only be done justice if it is indeed an obscure monster that keeps us guessing and unsure of guesses until the very day it is revealed.
You also mention MitD being accessible to non-D&D players. This is, in a word, absurd. Non D&D players don't know Tarrasque, probably don't know beholders, likely don't really know that there is more than one kind of dragon (or at least that their colours correlate to their breath type - i.e. they expect all dragons to breath fire), have no idea that there is a difference between demons and devils, etc. Notwithstanding the fact that MitD was thought up in #100, back when his jokes were far more D&D based, the whole idea that MitD must be recognisable to non D&D players doesn't withstand casual scrutiny. Non D&D players will likely have a working knowledge of greek-roman mythology, maybe another mythology if they are geeky (or at least non-American; I'd imagine chinese readers know about chinese mythology and so on), and depending on the type of geek, other 'verses as well. But Tarrasque isn't famous outside of D&D, and if by some planetary alignment it turned out that MitD was a miniature Tarrasque, most of the readers would be as baffled by it as if it were a Protean.
Finally, I'm going to call you out on the idea of a Rich template ("possibly with some homebrewed powers thrown in for good measure"). At this point, lacking evidence, I do not accept what I've come to call the "Rich template" because it is unbounded. The base needn't be obscure. After all, for all we know Rich picked a baby, and gave it all the powers of MitD (supreme strength, teleportation, earthquake...). But a Rich template is irrational, not meant as an insult, but meant as 'counter to rational discussion'. Here we compare base creatures against one another - but if a Rich template is allowed, they all fit (and then the discussion is "which one needs the least homebrew", to which the answer is, "the one that requires no Rich template at all", so we might as well ignore the possibility of a Rich template in the first place and stick with base creatures).