What monsters would you like to see ?

[Agentorange]

Speaking hypothetically, if a monster manual type supplement was ever to be mooted what would folks like to see in such a supplement ? My personal preference would be for creatures and monsters from earth mythology, Rakshasa, Berberlang etc etc. The old vikings and Ninja supplements gave a nice selection from Norse and Japanese mythology and I guess they could form the start of such a work, the various other mythologies have huge possibilities, what would other people like to see ? Dinosaurs, Woolly Mammoths, Were Hamsters ?

[soltakss]

What people need is creatures they can use or would probably use.

This depends on settings, to a certain extent, and genre.

Many people would need standard real world creatures for historical or adventure settings, but then we get the bear/lion/tiger/wolf stats from RQ2/3/BRP repeated.

If you include creatures from real world mythology, then do you concentrate on mythology that most people know about (Classical/Celtic/Germanic) or emerging mythologies that some people know about (Aztec/Mayan/Native American/Japanese/Chinese) or mythologies that very few people seem to know about (Basque/Eurasian/African/Australian Aboriginal)? Apologies for anyone whose mythologies I have said weren't well known. You can end up with a book where vert few GMs will use many of the monsters.

Look at the RQ2 Bestiary. How many people, hand on heart, used Baeguests or Red Caps regularly? I've used Red Caps once and Barguests probably twice.

You probably need a generic book with the standard real world creatures and wel known mythological beasts, then folow up with bestiaries in supplements that are setting/genre specific.

But, that's like RQ3 Monsters book with the Gloranthan Encyclopedia to follow.

[Agentorange]

I imagine it would also depend on the size and depth of the bestiaries in the various supplements themselves. For example if the Mythic Iceland ( which I'm really rather looking forward to ) pulls out the stops and gives a huge bestiary from Icelandic/Nordic myth then there wouldn't be much call for further material in a monsters supplement, likewise the same might well apply to the Mythic Rome supplement, good bestiaries in real world settings might render the idea of a monster manual redundant.

[PK Games]

I agree that the creatures in this type of book have to be either 1) Mundane and necessary that everyone will use. Such as horse, dog, orc, goblin and dragon or 2) unique and odd. These are creatures that players and GMs have never heard of or seen and would create interesting play around.

I think the problem with each monster manual type book I have ever seen is a lake of motivation for encounters. A few extra paragraphs per creature of a sampe encounter scenario and what not would go a long way from turning Normal Kobolds to the Dreaded Tuckers Kobolds.

In Berlin '61 Im trying for a mix of exotic pantheon specific monsters, classic b-movie horror monsters and everyday typical encounters. Sure I can have hundreds of pages of tentacled demons and nazi war scientists but whats the point if I dont have stats for street thugs, government agents and that drunk guy at the bar?

Just my lousy and useless 2 cents.

[Nightshade]

I'd actually prefer a book of alien creatures. I've got tons of fantasy monsters for BRP style games from older products, but most aren't particularly appropriate for a non-wahoo SF setting.

[Kloster]

Hello,

Whatever the case, we need killer rabbits (and the holy grenades to hunt them).

Back to topic, I agree monsters/creatures are setting specific, except for the generic ones. So, count me on a light creature book that contains what is quasi-universal. The other creatures have to be described within their setting book.

Runequestement votre,

Kloster

[fmitchell]

What I would like to see is not a "monster book" but a "monster construction book". More than just a "one from column A, two from column B" approach, it would analyze how creatures fit into an ecology, or unique monsters fit into a narrative. It would then give tips on how to balance a creature against the the PCs. From what I hear A Magical Society: Beast Builder takes this approach for d20, but in the BRP we have to guess how characteristics and special attacks affect the deadliness of a creature.

Such a book could have wide applicability. Fantasy GMs could create whole new encounters to surprise their players. Science fiction GMs could create plausible alien flora and fauna. Horror GMs could move beyond standard Cthulhoid monstrosities to create their own terrors.

Then again, in games as in real life, I believe the deadliest creature is man, so I think a GM can do pretty well by pitting human(oid) societies, kingdoms, and organizations against the PCs.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by fmitchell

What I would like to see is not a "monster book" but a "monster construction book". More than just a "one from column A, two from column B" approach, it would analyze how creatures fit into an ecology, or unique monsters fit into a narrative. It would then give tips on how to balance a creature against the the PCs. From what I hear A Magical Society: Beast Builder takes this approach for d20, but in the BRP we have to guess how characteristics and special attacks affect the deadliness of a creature.

Such a book could have wide applicability. Fantasy GMs could create whole new encounters to surprise their players. Science fiction GMs could create plausible alien flora and fauna. Horror GMs could move beyond standard Cthulhoid monstrosities to create their own terrors.

Then again, in games as in real life, I believe the deadliest creature is man, so I think a GM can do pretty well by pitting human(oid) societies, kingdoms, and organizations against the PCs.

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.



Plus, the "balanced" approach of D&D doesn't hold true. The "this creature is a challenge for X characters of Y level" thing is only a very rough guideline. In truth, a GM has to look over the characters and the opposition and figure it all out on a case by case basis. There are simply too many variables for the guidelines to be worth much.

In D&D terms, things like PC attribute scores and equipment carried are not factored into the equations, and they are very important factors.

Likewise in BRP, creatures stats don't tell the whole story. A grizzly bear is bigger and stronger than a brown bear, but isn't really much more of a threat to a group that can hit it with massed missile fire, especially if they have access to modern firearms.

Even very high STR scores sort of cap out as a contributor to threat level. Once you hit 6d6 damage or so, the actual damages becomes irrelevant, a hit means dead or incapacitated. At that point skill is the big factor (skill usually is the major factor in BRP, along with brains).

Technically, a GM could make custom monsters in BRP with the Superpower, or Mutant rules anyway. Buy any sort of hard & fast power measurements are wishful thinking.



As for a creatures book.
I think it would either have to be a mix of mundane, mythic, alien, or else separate books by genre (BRP Animals, BRP Mythical Creatures, BRP Space Creatures, BRP Aliens, BRP Mythic Races, etc).


I think the best approach would be to start with an all-in-one book and then do the rest in setting books, or as supplements to the settings if & when they are needed (the way we are handle multiple forums here).

[PK Games]

I agree with the generic creature book first then campaign specific books after that. I may not want to do mythic iceland or vikings or ninjas, I may just want to do my own thing and a generic monster book would be more appropriate for my needs.

But the generic book has to be fairly vague with some detail but nothing truly specific (Orcs live in the south, elves dont eat meat, all halflings are thieves). I think the true tragedy that is D20 (all all its ancestors) was the wandering monster by HD/Level idea.

A generic "typical" listing, and then a few paragraphs of adjusting the template.

[Atgxtg]

Originally Posted by PK Games

I think the true tragedy that is D20 (all all its ancestors) was the wandering monster by HD/Level idea.

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.

While the BPR core rules are generic, I hope the supplments are not. For the most part, I like my supplments to be tailored to a specific setting or genre. I hope that we get one of more spefic campaign settings to game in, rather than a genric fantasy world with all the old cliches.