What monsters would you like to see ?

[Shaira]

You know, I may be an old roleplaying fogey these days, but I would love to see the old "All The World's Monsters" see the light of day again.

Monster books these days are too po-faced, trying to be zoological textbooks. With ATWM, anything went - you had straight po-faced scientific writeups of giant beasties, and then wild and whacko monsters from just about any source of inspiration - comic books, B-movies, fairy tales, science-fiction, whatever. It fed the imagination and had something for everyone (I still love the "Coachman of Death", if only for the Sleepy Hollow atmosphere).

Three books. Everyone contributes something, everyone gets credited. Favourite monsters all over the place. Would be way cool.

Now where did I put those writeups for Replicants, Aliens, Daleks, Tusken Raiders and Jawas...? Reckon I can change them names if I have too...

[Enpeze]

I think a basic monster list in the DBRP book is enough. Specific monsters should be included in the various setting books.

Generally I like SB5 presents its monsters. (eg. the fact that mundane animals only have one page with compressed stats without artwork - which is quite clever because it saves space and everybody knows how a horse or lion looks like)

[drohem]

I would very much like to see a monster book dedicated to real-world animals from insects to dinosaurs. In RQ/BRP normal animals can be and are dangerous to characters, and fighting them was no light matter. In D&D in all its incarnations, fighting normal animals wasn't even given a thought unless you were first or second level. After third level or so, animals were merely a minor nuisance and nothing of consequence. A bear, bah, a tiger, ho-hum, a lion, yawn.

[fmitchell]

I'll grant that trying to "balance" encounters exactly is a pipe dream. However ...

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yuk. I hate it when TSR tried to give fantastic monsters an ecological niche. For BRP I think such a tactic would be disasterous.

For starters, in BRP, unlike D&D, not all worlds are the same (i.e a fantasy world with a climate like feudal Europe), not are the populated with the same species (elves, dwarves, orcs), and critters. So an ecology book would either be useful for one setting, or force all BRP setting to be alike. Once you work out what fantasy critter eats another fantasy critter, you need the second critter for the ecology to hold up.

The point of this hypothetical book is not to hand the GM a pre-made ecology, but to present ecological niches and let the GM fill them as he sees fit. So, for example, if the GM creates a carnivorous species, he doesn't forget to create enough prey of whatever species to sustain the carnivorous population.

If the GM wants to create one-off monsters, or magically summoned species, or a species with a bizarre or unbalanced ecology, he's also free to do so. In that case, a discussion about monsters in literature might provide some useful guidance to make sure the creature thematically fits with the GM's intent.

Finally, notes on playing creatures would also help. Natural animals (and sapients!) would run away from a superior aggressor, not attack mindlessly. Semi-intelligent or intelligent creatures would use strategy and their innate abilities instead of a full-on assault. I'm sure someone who did the research could find behavior patterns in nature to supplement common sense, for the GM who wanted realistic animal behavior.

[Kloster]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

...
Generally I like SB5 presents its monsters. (eg. the fact that mundane animals only have one page with compressed stats without artwork - which is quite clever because it saves space and everybody knows how a horse or lion looks like)

I take.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[tal]

I'd like to see a basic bestiary with equal content for fantasy beasts, modern day beasts(regular animals and legendary beasts-think mothman, etc...) and sci-fi beasts/creatures. Giant animals/monsters would be great too. I would also like to see a big book just on prehistoric life like Gurps dinosaurs, however I'm not going to hold my breath for that one. I agree most animals/monsters should be in the setting books, but would like to see a general book.

[Agentorange]

Originally Posted by drohem

I would very much like to see a monster book dedicated to real-world animals from insects to dinosaurs. In RQ/BRP normal animals can be and are dangerous to characters, and fighting them was no light matter. In D&D in all its incarnations, fighting normal animals wasn't even given a thought unless you were first or second level. After third level or so, animals were merely a minor nuisance and nothing of consequence. A bear, bah, a tiger, ho-hum, a lion, yawn.

There was a great PDF ( and I think POD ) D20 book by Betabunny Publishing called Predators that covered a lot of this ground ( no dinosaurs though ) it looked at: canines, felines, primates, reptiles, birds all sorts of stuff, gave stats blocks, hunting tips, pictures of the beasts and their tracks, values of pelts, ecological niches etc etc, covered everything from badgers upto whales even had a few cryptids in there for a little spice. I really liked it. Not to mention I actually learned a lot as well.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

The point of this hypothetical book is not to hand the GM a pre-made ecology, but to present ecological niches and let the GM fill them as he sees fit. So, for example, if the GM creates a carnivorous species, he doesn't forget to create enough prey of whatever species to sustain the carnivorous population.

Assuming that such creatures need an ecology to support them. For instance Dragons might live off of magical energy, and only eat the odd maiden or two for variety.

Maybe rather than an "ecology of" approach, the method used in Sci-FI RPGs like Traveler might be best. Work up a few categories like, Grazer, Chaser and Pouncer, and just assign creatures to a category. Leave an exotic categories for the strange stuff. That way you get a rough ecology without making creatures interdependent with specific other creatures.

Originally Posted by fmitchell

Finally, notes on playing creatures would also help. Natural animals (and sapients!) would run away from a superior aggressor, not attack mindlessly. Semi-intelligent or intelligent creatures would use strategy and their innate abilities instead of a full-on assault. I'm sure someone who did the research could find behavior patterns in nature to supplement common sense, for the GM who wanted realistic animal behavior.

Yeah, I with you on this. Maybe something like a flight or flight rating, and a few notes of how certain creatures react. I get a little tired of campaigns where very creatures fights on suicidally unto death.

There are a few RPGs that do give such guidelines (such as Traveler), and some of it would be helpful to BRP. Even things like how bears tend to backtrack pursuers or that playing dead can sometimes stop them from attacking you would be useful in the creature description.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Agentorange

There was a great PDF ( and I think POD ) D20 book by Betabunny Publishing called Predators that covered a lot of this ground ( no dinosaurs though ) it looked at: canines, felines, primates, reptiles, birds all sorts of stuff, gave stats blocks, hunting tips, pictures of the beasts and their tracks, values of pelts, ecological niches etc etc, covered everything from badgers upto whales even had a few cryptids in there for a little spice. I really liked it. Not to mention I actually learned a lot as well.

Cool. I downloads the Bears preview and looked at it. I might just have to consider purchasing the full item. Thanks!

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

I think one of the big tradegeies is that so much stuff is common to all game worlds. It makes the game much blander, since so many things are common from world to world. You have the same pseudo-Tolkien high, grey, and wood elves, over 90% of D&D supplemts and game worlds. Its one reason why regardlesss of setting, D&D plays the same. You got the same classes, magic systems, speices, and magic items, just the that the land masses change.

I think its a bad idea to underestimate the "Its just too damn much work" factor here, though; even people trying to create original game worlds have only so much time to put into that creation, and have to decide on priorities. Often monsters, especially non-intelligent ones, are a low priority on that because they're fairly detail intensive but not particularly core to the player experience.

And in the end, its sometimes lost anyway. If you have an intelligent non-human humanoid type in a world that has some elflike qualities, people are going to, as a group, see them as elves almost no matter what you do; even if you emphasize the differences, what will lodge in people's minds is "oh, they're barbarian elves who hate magic", but it'll still be "elves".

So I think some of this is almost inevitable.