Recent Posts
This isn't a complaint, just something I've been thinking about as I browse my Pathfinder library.
Why does every adventure path chapter, pathfinder module, RPG superstar proposal, Golarion backdrop, etc. have to contain new monsters?
While I realize that new monsters can give an adventure a fresh feel, it just seems like the well of monster innovation is running dry and Golarion's sense of internal consistency is sagging. Why publish a bestiary if following products will let 80% of it lay mostly dormant? The world must be a very scary place for its inhabitants if thousands of different types of intelligent, terrifying monsters patrol its forests and hills.
I don't want to see too many cooks spoil the soup. My wife was really into Design Star when it came out. Since my computer is in the living room, that pretty much made me a viewer of the show too. The show had these people that were so concerned with being unique and fresh that they would design ridiculously outlandish clothes that no one in their right mind would wear.
Of course Golarion has not reached such an extreme position; however, as the years go by, it's not unreasonable to expect more and more really out-there content. I'd like to see Golarion's contributors use what they already have in unique ways. Maybe change ideas to fit Golarion instead of changing Golarion to fit ideas?
Then again, I prefer more of a low to medium fantasy feel so maybe I'm the only one of this opinion.
The world must be a very scary place for its inhabitants if thousands of different types of intelligent, terrifying monsters patrol its forests and hills.
Yep. It is. That is why the world needs heroes. Like the Players.
Then again, I prefer more of a low to medium fantasy feel so maybe I'm the only one of this opinion.
Oh, you're not the only one. Definitely not. There is no reason why you cannot build a world with only normal animals and humans. And there is no reason why you cannot use the Campaign Setting for exactly that.
But to answer your main question. GMs like new monsters because enough players buy the Bestiaries (or Monster Manuals when it was 3.x) that there was always a need for something new to throw at them. New monsters in Paizo's AP and alternate monster books (like the upcoming Book of Beasts from Jon Brazer Enterprises [Shameless Plug, sorry]) were a real big help to those GMs.
I agree, too many players have the Bestiary committed to memory (guilty as a player myself). Instead of constantly making up new monsters though, I just mess with the physical descriptions and names. No reason that the fire vulnerable, large critter can't look like a lion headed monstrosity and be called a Wargavir instead of troll. Cal everything a demon, like some cultures do, and you throw off the players even more.
Villager "there's a demon in the abandoned temple!!"
PCs gear up to fight an evil outsider, turns out to be an Ogre with druid levels. Commoners are not naturalists, and can't always be relied on for accurate info :)
I'm not sure there can EVER be too many monsters if you keep making those new monsters interesting. Certainly if we limited our new monster ideas to ideas we at Paizo had for monsters the well would run dry eventually... but since we draw the majority of our new monster ideas from mythology, cryptozoology, literature, and various other real-world sources dating back over the last few thousand years, there's a LOT of stuff to build on. People have been making up monsters from before the start of history, and that isn't gonna run out after a few more Pathfinders.
Monsters are also a HUGE draw for most GMs. Just as players will come out in droves to buy new books that give their characters a new set of toys in the form of new feats, spells, and magic items, GMs will come out in droves to buy new monsters. Even if they only use a new monster once... even if they only use an IDEA they got from reading a new monster... those new monsters are justified.
And finally, it's just plain fun to read about monsters and look at monster art. It's not a waste if you enjoy reading a monster entry. You don't have to use a monster in a game to be entertained by it, and we don't have to justify each of our new monsters by making sure they all appear in an adventure (although many do).
Even if you run a low-fantasy game, like something based on George R. R. Martin's books, monsters have a place. In fact, in a low-fantasy game, being able to pick a super obscure monster out of a large mountain of monster choices is a BONUS, I would think, since it's more fun to use a monster that no one's dealt with before in a low-fantasy game than to just build up "there's a monster" and in the end it's only just a zombie. Back at George Martin... he manages to pull that off because he's a GREAT writer/storyteller... better than most of us, for sure!
Villager "there's a demon in the abandoned temple!!"
PCs gear up to fight an evil outsider, turns out to be an Ogre with druid levels. Commoners are not naturalists, and can't always be relied on for accurate info :)
This is going to be one of my main "weapons" for Kingmaker. Commoners are always going to describe something as "viscious, mean looking, having horrible fangs, and and and and ... it wanted to eat my baby."
EDIT: the best part will be when the players let their guard down from hearing this same story so many times and the monster really is baby-eating, viscious, mean looking and has horrible fangs.
Also, more monster choices are useful for creating dangerrs in themed settings. If I were making a Jungle setting that is coming to life in a dangerous way, having only an Assassin vine as a plant type would get boring for a long campaign, but if I have 15 plant type monsters, hey, now there's a varied and dangerous place to be. In the opinion of this DM, the mor monsters the better!
There's also an old tradition, from way back in TSR/1e AD&D days, of including new monsters in the modules. They may be Drow, Kuo-Toa, Giant Sundews, Apsis, whatever was new in the adventure. Paizo including new monsters makes the Adventure Path line feel like... home... to me.
I've said it before, the creative people at Paizo just "get" me as a gamer like nobody else does.
I don't have a problem with there being either more or new monsters.
I like them as a player, DM, and even just a avid reader.
I do have 2 "Buts.." to throw in and comment on.
I am annoyed however by lack of depth or creativity of some monsters. Its a goblin with "X" ability. Give me something of the reasoning. I love it when I encounter something new and start finding out why the beasts are the way they are.
Second, I would have to say to some creatures...why? I know the simple answers are, well there shaped by the gods, they are experiments by mages, ect... and to some extent I can buy it, but its not a blanket. I mean we can all think of some 10 armed crazy powered monster of some type, but why is it still here, why hasn't rampaged off. It "living" in area, how is it fitting with ecosystem. If just killing everything why isn't this a barren wasteland and the thing died of starvation?
I just like pieces to fit and yes I know its fantasy and its not going to but sometimes a really good story, gives me some semblance of "why". Not just, "uh the archwizard made these creatures and left" Thats it?? arg!
Now Paizo I think has done a pretty darn good job with fleshing out nearly everything they do. Very well "put together". But I understand also the concern for putting brand new monsters in everything also can get a eyebrow raise to.
But to answer your main question. GMs like new monsters because enough players buy the Bestiaries (or Monster Manuals when it was 3.x) that there was always a need for something new to throw at them.
I agree, too many players have the Bestiary committed to memory (guilty as a player myself).
Yeah see now in my game I discourage that sort of behavior by reducing experience. Metagame thinking annoys me to no end. As a brief aside, if players start playing like that, then the monsters metagame in their own way too.
Second, I would have to say to some creatures...why? I know the simple answers are, well there shaped by the gods, they are experiments by mages, ect... and to some extent I can buy it, but its not a blanket. I mean we can all think of some 10 armed crazy powered monster of some type, but why is it still here, why hasn't rampaged off. It "living" in area, how is it fitting with ecosystem. If just killing everything why isn't this a barren wasteland and the thing died of starvation?
I just like pieces to fit and yes I know its fantasy and its not going to but sometimes a really good story, gives me some semblance of "why". Not just, "uh the archwizard made these creatures and left" Thats it?? arg!
Now Paizo I think has done a pretty darn good job with fleshing out nearly everything they do. Very well "put together". But I understand also the concern for putting brand new monsters in everything also can get a eyebrow raise to.
As usual, somebody is able to translate my own thoughts into words better than I am.
Monsters are also a HUGE draw for most GMs. Just as players will come out in droves to buy new books that give their characters a new set of toys in the form of new feats, spells, and magic items, GMs will come out in droves to buy new monsters.
Because some people just buy D&D books for the monsters.
This is the driving force. That's what people want to pay for, so that's what they are delivered. It is, I think, possible to have too much of a good thing though.
Yep. It is. That is why the world needs heroes.Like the Players.
Yeah, but it really hinders the suspension of disbelief for me. Like I said, it's just a thought I had.
Yeah see now in my game I discourage that sort of behavior by reducing experience. Metagame thinking annoys me to no end. As a brief aside, if players start playing like that, then the monsters metagame in their own way too.
Caution is required with rules like this to prevent metagaming in the other direction. Once a player knows the capabilities of a monster, even if it's through having encountered it legit rather than reading the stats in the book, it is impossible for the player to act exactly as if he did not know the capabilities of that monster. Thus, penalizing them for it only encourages them to go the other way and pretend they're absolutely unable to draw any conclusions from obvious cues which they would have drawn if they didn't know the capabilities of the monster. Thus, still metagaming, and still just as harmful to the game.
IMO, the only metagaming that really needs punished is the blatant stuff. Players keeping track of the monsters' HP, (in 3.5) power attacking based off what they know the critter's AC to be, etc.
There are, I think, a couple of factors at play here.
The first, and I think probably the most important, is the secondary-use capacity of the module. The primary use of the module is, of course, the adventure, but what do you do when the adventure is over? Either you find a different group with whom to use it (something that I try not to do, as I've spent years pruning my group down to just the players that I find most tolerable), or it sits on your shelf collecting dust. If the game also comes with a couple of neat monsters, though, you can go back to it time and again, particularly if the monsters scale well.
Second, stupid monsters aren't a bug, they're a feature. Stupid monsters have been with us since the earliest games of D&D. Gelatinous Cube. Rust Monster. Owlbear. These are the names of some of the stupidest monsters ever designed, and we love them like we love our own families.
Yeah see now in my game I discourage that sort of behavior by reducing experience. Metagame thinking annoys me to no end. As a brief aside, if players start playing like that, then the monsters metagame in their own way too.In other words, you encourage metagaming in the opposite direction. Once a player knows the capabilities of a monster, even if it's through having encountered it legit rather than reading the stats in the book, it is impossible for the player to act exactly as if he did not know the capabilities of that monster. Thus, penalizing them for it only encourages them to go the other way and pretend they're absolutely unable to draw any conclusions from obvious cues which they would have drawn if they didn't know the capabilities of the monster. Thus, still metagaming, and still just as harmful to the game.
IMO, the only metagaming that really needs punished is the blatant stuff. Players keeping track of the monsters' HP, (in 3.5) power attacking based off what they know the critter's AC to be, etc.
No not exactly. It has more to do with role playing vs. roll playing. The Int 6 fighter who has never encountered a demon before announces to the party that the horrible demon from the 27th level of the abyss can only be slain by magical weapons made of truesilver. In so doing, then yes, he would take an XP hit for that encounter. Frank the player may have read that in the bestiary, but Twitchy the Fighter sure didn't.
A player who asks for and succeeds on an appropriate knowledge skill would, however, be able to pass on that information. Even if the player didn't know it, I would provide the information as if the character did. Depending on the situation, I don't have a problem with two players talking to each other in game terms as long as it isn't providing an unfair advantage to the characters.
A character who has absolutely no reason to believe a monster will attack him with fire yet protects himself with fire warding spells upon seeing it will be rewarded as if the encounter was a CR or 2 lower.
IMO, the only metagaming that really needs punished is the blatant stuff. Players keeping track of the monsters' HP, (in 3.5) power attacking based off what they know the critter's AC to be, etc.
The Int 6 fighter who has never encountered a demon before announces to the party that the horrible demon from the 27th level of the abyss can only be slain by magical weapons made of truesilver. In so doing, then yes, he would take an XP hit for that encounter. Frank the player may have read that in the bestiary, but Twitchy the Fighter sure didn't.
I'd call that "blatant". And yes that needs handled. But it doesn't have to be docking XP.
- How about instead it is immune to silver? Wouldn't that be a nasty surprise. One custom spell/potion/magical effect/blessing from a deity/whatever would do that. No need to change anything else about the monster. You may have to give the monster an extra CR point and the equivalent XP.
- Change the fluff but use the same crunch. Describe it as something different and use a different mini. Your players won't know the difference.
- Apply a template. Medium size, scaley lizard looking creatures are what? Lizardfolk? Nope, they're Kobolds with a Giant Template on them. And your players will wonder what is going on.
- Use an alternate monster book. This saves alot of work and handily solves the problem. Why have the monsters in a given setting be owlbears, kobolds, and shadowmastifs when they can be hatethralls, silverbells, and avowed reavers.
But it doesn't have to be docking XP.
<snip list of good suggestions>
Yeah, I totally agree with all that. In fact, I said some pretty similar stuff in the post that the boards sent to limbo. The example I used was a "troll" (by stats and mechanics) that was described as a big shaggy bear-like monster with multiply-redundant vital organs, such that it was nearly impossible to kill. Statwise, it's identical to a troll more or less (might change its regeneration vulnerabilities if I felt like it), but the players won't have any clue what it is just by looking at it.
I'd call that "blatant". And yes that needs handled. But it doesn't have to be docking XP.
I frequently present creatures as things they are not. My players get into the habit of asking for knowledge checks as a result. Big, bloated, bluish skin, and wielding a club? Could be an ogre, could be a bridge troll (which is exactly like a normal troll, just looks a bit different).
One plus is the emphasis on skill checks in combat. Another is the lack of metagaming, or the sometimes dire consequences of doing so (getting them to cast the wrong protection spell is great fun).
I like to encourage this and often try to throw some curveballs to my players, but in the end its not possible to have the same experience that you did the first time you figured out how to take down monster X. But with new monsters that becomes possible again.
I agree with zurai in that eventually its really hard to figure out the 'fair' place where your character would figure out that cold spells might be a good idea against the red dragon or the fire is a waste of time. Not everything should require a knowledge check in my view. Even if you dont have book knowledge it's possible to figure something out.
Which is why my group has included something called a 'gut check'. Level + wis + int. If you want to 'know' something that the player does but the pc might not, you can make one. Because it's possible for people without formal training to know things.
I agree with zurai in that eventually its really hard to figure out the 'fair' place where your character would figure out that cold spells might be a good idea against the red dragon or the fire is a waste of time. Not everything should require a knowledge check in my view. Even if you dont have book knowledge it's possible to figure something out.
Of course there is no hard and fast rule that says a character may not know anything until he has personally experienced it. I think most inahbitants of a fantasy world would be aware that red dragons breathe fire.
The problem I have with creating new monsters for every adventure as a cure for metagaming is that it isn't a cure at all.
The problem I have with creating new monsters for every adventure as a cure for metagaming is that it isn't a cure at all.
True. (EDIT: But is docking XP any more of an answer?) And there is no reason to completely redo every monster book for every campaign. Take goblins, kobolds, orcs, and gnolls for example. These are probably represent 90% of the average daily threat a non-adventurous person sees on a daily basis. IMO, there is no reason why a player shouldn't use their full OOC knowledge on them. Their in character personality probably knows more. Even the Int 6 guy.
For everything else, the average person never probably ever encountered it and probably doesn't even know they exist either. So, really there is no reason not to use different monsters. In character, they wouldn't know what it is, so why not them as well.
But if you want to use familiar monsters, I highly recommend "reskinning" them (describing them differently, applying a template, or changing up one or two things about them). Remember everyone is there for fun. Being penalized for showing mastery with the game isn't all that fun.
I'm not sure there can EVER be too many monsters if you keep making those new monsters interesting.
+1! I've already picked a few from CoT alone for my 'Far Realm/Age of Worms' campaign, and I still want to get my Bestiary 2 as soon as possible. As you said, a GM may never have too many interesting monsters...
Well, so far in Paizo products I've seen only a few monsters that the DM CAN use (but really doesn't have to) to add soem local flavour to otherwise generic setting (Bestiary creatures).
You can see similar things on Earth. Both Arctic and Antarctic polar ecosystems may look alike with all that snow and ice, but while on south pole there are seals and penguins, northern tundra ecosystems have bears, rabbits, foxes, etc.
You can have ten deserts in your setting and all of them sandy, patrolled by blue dragons and purple worms, but that doesn't mean that each of them can't have it's own unique creatures. And when you run out of ideas or when you need some inspiration, you just pick some product thematically based in desert (Legacy of Fire AP for example) flip a few pages and you'll likely save yourself quite some time.
EDIT: For monster knowledge I'd measure character general knowledge with how common the monster is. When we come across this problem, the DM usually says, that the PCs have no way of knowing that and if they want to use this particular weakness, they should roll rather well on knowledge X (or they should have made some RP research from local sage, wisewoman or somesuch, as any well behaved greenhorn adventurer does) or it simply won't happen that way (werewolves suddenly gain vulnerability to tin and PCs can fiddle with their silver knives all they want).
But if you want to use familiar monsters, I highly recommend "reskinning" them (describing them differently, applying a template, or changing up one or two things about them).
I've been doing posts on my blog about this very topic for the past few days.
I've been doing posts on my blog about this very topic for the past few days.
Hey Sean - Do you mind if I post your "Monster Tips" comments from your blog on d20pfsrd.com? I think they're great and would like to include them on the individual monster pages they apply to!
Why does every adventure path chapter, pathfinder module, RPG superstar proposal, Golarion backdrop, etc. have to contain new monsters?
Pretty much the same reason every Forgotten Realms product had a dozen new spells (that seemed disproportionately likely to form a floating blade or whip out of energy, some days...). We likes the crunch.
When adapting adventures for my own use, I am very prone to backing monsters down to stuff in the MM. New fish-dudes use Sahuagin stats. New lizard dudes use Lizardfolk stats. New animal-headed dudes become Gnolls or whatever. I'm not a fan of 200 or so humanoid races wandering around a single world, and try to cut it down to a mere 30 or so. :)
That being said, I don't begrudge a few new monsters showing up in every product, since I'll use the ones I want and step down the ones I don't think warrant a whole new monster type. Some people like 'em, and I'm okay with that. I used to buy Forgotten Realms stuff for the crunch, and while I'm over that (mostly), and even a little put off by stuff like diety-specific spells these days, I get that not everyone is a jaded old fart like me.