What monsters would you like to see ?

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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.

Some yes. But a lot of that depends on what effort (if any) is made towards fleshing out the species and culture. Traveler, and most of it's spin-offs, did a great job of making aliens seem, alien. On the other hand, Taslanta used to boast about all the races it had, and NO ELVES, yet had something like a dozen elf clones.

What I don't like is for every world to have "high" evles, who worhsip Corelleion Latherian, are proficnent with swords and bows, are a dying culture, proficient in magic, live for 600 years, etc.

Is there one D&D world, where the Evles are an expanding culture? Or where the Orcs aren't evil? Nope.

That's what I liked about RQ and the other BRP games. Aldrymi weren't the Tolkien (token?) elves, Trolls weren't evil, just different, and neither appeared in CoC or Stormbringer.

[fmitchell]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

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.

That's why I have the slogan "man is the most dangerous animal". I prefer adventures where the goal is to stop evil cults, corrupt elites, or some mysterious uncanny thing; slaying a whole bunch of beasts doesn't interest me, and in the BRP system it's likely to get you killed for no good reason.

So, if I truly need a "monster", I'd rather design a one-off suited to the adventure or campaign. Otherwise, I'll draw my enemies from opposing organizations, nations, and cultures. (Last year, I played in a d20 Midnight campaign where 90% or our enemies were orcs, goblins, and evil humans ... but each had enough personality, and importance to our actual goals, that we players never felt bored. Except during combat, but that's d20 for you.)

Even in a science fiction game, I'd rather decree that humans brought Earth creatures with them rather than start cranking out alien beasts (although having generic Grazer/Chaser/whatever templates would be appreciated). I'm even parsimonious with sapient alien species, since most "aliens" in fiction could just as easily be genetically engineered humans with a cultural quirk.

[Simlasa]

I like fmitchell's ideas... a book with guidelines for creating creatures and their habits/ecologies... with maybe a sample beastiary... would probably be the most use to me... and the most inspirational for ideas.
A big book of random fantasy monsters not so much... though it might be fun to look at I probably wouldn't use many of them.

Most of the fantasy settings I've made up have tended to really veer towards being low-tech science fiction settings with some supernatural elements tossed in... meaning the creatures shared common morphologies scattered across various niches, rather than just being randomly dispersed and not at all similar to each other.

[Enpeze]

Originally Posted by Simlasa

I like fmitchell's ideas... a book with guidelines for creating creatures and their habits/ecologies... with maybe a sample beastiary... would probably be the most use to me... and the most inspirational for ideas.
A big book of random fantasy monsters not so much... though it might be fun to look at I probably wouldn't use many of them.

Most of the fantasy settings I've made up have tended to really veer towards being low-tech science fiction settings with some supernatural elements tossed in... meaning the creatures shared common morphologies scattered across various niches, rather than just being randomly dispersed and not at all similar to each other.

Yep. I am doing the same. This creates the necessary authenticity for a good game. Thats why I think that a "monster manual" with generic monsters is not very useful. The basic list of the DBRP book is probably enough to start with. More specific monsters should be described in the various settings.

[GerallKahla]

The concept of a book which describes how to create creatures for your specific setting has been done; it's called the Monster Burner for the Burning Wheel system.

Not only does it point out how to integrate the specifics of your new critter into the the gamescience, but it gives tremendous weight to the role it plays in the setting. Quite an innovative book, if a bit story-game oriented.

A book of lists of monster stats? Not so interested...

A setting book with the creatures found wandering this specific countries' lesser worn trails? Much more interested...

-pax-

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Some yes. But a lot of that depends on what effort (if any) is made towards fleshing out the species and culture. Traveler, and most of it's spin-offs, did a great job of making aliens seem, alien. On the other hand, Taslanta used to boast about all the races it had, and NO ELVES, yet had something like a dozen elf clones.

Yeah, that advertising campaign always made me roll my eyes a bit. They tried to make their societies different, but in the end, they didn't strike me as significantly different than the high elves/wood elves model.

What I don't like is for every world to have "high" evles, who worhsip Corelleion Latherian, are proficnent with swords and bows, are a dying culture, proficient in magic, live for 600 years, etc.

I understand your attitude, but like I said, sometimes that part just doesn't matter to people that much; they want something vaguely like typical high elves for some background reason, so why bother to spend time thinking about the details when the extent will do?

Its always a good idea to remember that for some GMs worldbuilding is not that fun; its often a chore.

Is there one D&D world, where the Evles are an expanding culture? Or where the Orcs aren't evil? Nope.

while not quite fitting that, DarkSun actually had rather different takes on many of the races than was typical as I recall.

That's what I liked about RQ and the other BRP games. Aldrymi weren't the Tolkien (token?) elves, Trolls weren't evil, just different, and neither appeared in CoC or Stormbringer.

On the other hand, people use Gloranthan style non-humans in a lot of theoretically original RQ worlds for much the same reason; the work is already done for them. I've even seen people import Gloranthan religions for that reason; it saved them the trouble of working out a cult, even though the context often seemed odd without Gloranthan backhistory.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

That's why I have the slogan "man is the most dangerous animal". I prefer adventures where the goal is to stop evil cults, corrupt elites, or some mysterious uncanny thing; slaying a whole bunch of beasts doesn't interest me, and in the BRP system it's likely to get you killed for no good reason.

People still find the battle with monsters evocative, and a lot of people like it; they'll find a reason for people to do so, even if its just to get through their territory to some place they want to go. Its not like such things are particularly uncommon in adventure fiction.

[drohem]

I personally like Talislantan materials and do not see Elven cut-outs as some have stated.

I do agree that Man is the best tool for a GM for he is a most dangerous beast!

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by drohem

I personally like Talislantan materials and do not see Elven cut-outs as some have stated.

I do agree that Man is the best tool for a GM for he is a most dangerous beast!

It a bad game, nor a bad setting, but the Cymrillians (aka the latter day Phaedrans), Marukan's, Mirin (and Rasmarin far as that goes), Ariane and to some extent the Xambrians all come across as varients on the elven theme to me.

[drohem]

Originally Posted by Nightshade

It a bad game, nor a bad setting, but the Cymrillians (aka the latter day Phaedrans), Marukan's, Mirin (and Rasmarin far as that goes), Ariane and to some extent the Xambrians all come across as varients on the elven theme to me.

Well, there's nothing new under the sun so I can look past the superficial similiarities.