Hogwash. I grew up in Northern California, and I still live here. Over 32 years, I've played with tons of people, most of whom were also from here (and a few from the Midwest). I've also socialized with, and swapped stories with many times the number I've played with.
Their styles, likes and experiences were of every imaginable type.
My own style has been an evolution unto itself. Do any of us remain the same person from the age of 11 to the age of 43 and beyond? So how can any of us be expected to remain static in our playing styles?
Yeah, but put that butthurt into its proper context. Is the whole group crying? If it's one person, your point holds up. If, for instance, Ravingdork is only bugging one person, then yeah, maybe that person is too easily butthurt and maybe that person is the one who needs to get over it.
But odds are the whole group are not babies. And basically, that is what the thread is about. If the majority think that a single player is coloring outside the lines, then perhaps he is.
So, your point is taken, but it's kind of outside the point. Your example would be outside the situations we are actually talking about.
More to the point, where do the tears you talk about come from? Well, they come from misery. Misery is not fun. No fun, no game. Telling somebody to just get over it and get on with playing really doesn't make the game any more fun than does getting butthurt in the first place. Not really a solution, is it?
Marchosias - (sometimes spelled Marchosius) - a 4th-Century BCE poet, born in Damascus, known for having been born, married, consecrated to the gods, died, and whose children were all born in the third month of the year, through a series of simple luck, missteps, coincidence and a supposed obsession with rolling dice to determine his most important life decisions.
Man, that was quick.
I personally loved the new series. Yes, I was the first to admit they lost their way at times, and there were some times when I missed a new episode and was not exactly brokenhearted about it.
But for the most part, they routinely managed to rope me in and keep me glued. Great drama. I think another great example of the power of Science Fiction to tell compelling stories and sometimes ask powerful questions that other dramas would rather avoid, or dumb down to fit into a weekly resolution.
I compare it to The X-Files and The Twilight Zone (original) and Star Trek in that regard (though the latter did manage to find weekly resolutions in most cases.)
As GM, you can, and should entertain the style and tastes of every player at the table - to a point.
I think this is not so hard as it sounds, because most of us as human beings understand how to play a game with, and get along with others. We come into a situation, and through normal means of discovery, learn how far we can push things and what our companions will and will not laugh at, and take well. We learn quickly what they don't like. Most people, including most gamers, learn to operate within those parameters, and I think most games get along fine enough because of that instinctive equilibrium.
Here on the boards, the exceptions come up, and I think they get blown up out of proportion.
But I agree with Adamantine Dragon in that most of the advice given to the individual posters, at least where they seem to have an overwhelming response against them from others, is misguided and wrongheaded. Especially when they themselves are admitting that everybody they've talked to outside of these forums also thinks they were in the wrong. I can't tell if the main body of the posters here try to collude with such posters to bolster their own wrongheaded ideas about things out of a desire to be nice and supportive, or out of a desire to cause chaos, or (most likely I think) out of a desire to make themselves feel better.
I mean, to my mind, if somebody comes here and says, "My character killed all my fellow PCs for the kicks, and I don't care that I made the GM's girlfriend cry," and he receives not only applause and support, but gets a bunch of advice on how to more quickly kill the PCs the next time, and a post or two about how bad the girlfriends of GMs suck... Well, I can't help but feel that the people supporting such bad behavior are doing so to make themselves feel better for the awful things they've done to their fellow players. It seems pretty transparent to me.
As to the game, and managing players, yes, I do believe that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. When sometimes we have a player who cannot mesh with the others, for whatever reason, whether it be character power, play style, or general sociability (and these things must ALL BE EQUAL FACTORS TO A GOOD GM - no playing favorites because you think one guy makes "cooler, more powerful characters," or whatever), then sometimes a person must be asked to leave. Hopefully after many attempts at making a fit, and in a mature, reasonable manner.
I believe there is a gaming group out there for everybody. Somebody, somewhere wants to play with you in the style you play. So go find them and be happy.
As your fighter levels, he gains iterative attacks faster than most of the other classes (paladin, barbarian and ranger excepted). Tool him right, he'll likely hit with all of those attacks, dealing more damage per round as he advances.
More damage per level would scale far too quickly for game balance. But more damage per round, plus additional damage through other means (feats, advanced abilities, etc.), scales nicely.
Coming late, but two invisible stalkers should come out to about an EL 9. Five level 7 PCs is an APL of 7.6 (or 8, if you prefer). It is a difficult encounter, just on paper. But the rickety boards make it more so.
You have to take special terrain and environmental factors into your calculations. CR/EL are not static. They do not depend merely on the number and type of creatures. Out on a flat field, probably. But above a chasm on unstable footing is a different thing.
That they survived is great, and I would expect a well-stocked crew to get along fine in an encounter that is only one EL higher (or one-and-a-half) than their APL. But here's the caveat:
If somebody dies, and it happens during an encounter that is overpowered, however slightly, you need to be prepared to admit you're at fault. From a player's perspective, they probably do not really need to expect anything higher than a level-equal threat. I am not saying that presenting something more challenging is wrong. Merely that it may not meet player expectations to do so, and you need to tread carefully in that arena.
EDIT: Are you saying there were actually 3 stalkers? Because that's an EL 10 vs an APL of 8, being generous. PLUS the rickety boards. Probably EL 11, all told, easy.
I will buy Chronicle of the Righteous, Champions of Purity, Distant Worlds, or Cerulean Seas: Beasts of the Boundless Blue for the first twelve posters that want them
Lemme wrap my aching brain around this. You are a new GM, your PCs are powered up like demi-gods (due to a couple of them convincing you to allow them to use a whackjob character building method), AND they are playing mostly evil characters?
My GM-sense is screaming.
EDIT: Well, I see now you're re-rolling. At least there's that.
Admittedly, I can sometimes have a hard time being uncritical when I've been told to death how great something is. This is conditional, actually.
For instance, if you tell me Moby Dick is great (I already know it is, but for example), I am more inclined to be okay with you saying that and give the book an honest read.
If you tell me the latest hinky fad-book is the greatest thing in the world, I am apt to be skeptical, and unfortunately I sometimes bring that skepticism into the actual reading of the book.
My best reads are things I get to first, before my friends can start spoiling them for me.
Jennifer Lawrence is indeed hawt. And, better still, she is a truly excellent actor. And she's hilarious on Letterman. I just love her!
However, I can't help but feel that she is in danger of finding herself overexposed. She seems to be in every major upcoming flick. That can go wrong for a young actor, really quickly.
Also, Katniss is a stupid, stupid (and obvious - she's like a cat - get it?!) name.
I hate that name. I like the character well enough.
I want to somehow punish the author for that lousy name. Like... never buying or reading those books. I'll stick with the flicks.
One more tidbit, I'll only have two players. I know most stuff is written assuming 4 PCs. Any tips on that? Maybe have them run two characters? We've never been real big on that because it's harder to get into character and make a fleshed out PC, but I guess beggars can't be choosers.
Two characters each will likely take some of the fun out of it for the players by complicating the game for them and, as you said, distract them from their main characters.
Since you are already assumed to be running more than one character in the form of all of the NPCs, it's probably better for you to send one or two NPCs to help them out. You don't need to run them in great detail, especially at first. It is, after all, the PCs' show. But they might help through buffs and healing, or whatever else your players do not want to deal with.
If that is too daunting for your first real time out, an alternative would be to either make a few extra magic items available to the two PCs, or to dumb down the encounters by reducing the number of enemies/dumbing down the enemies, or a combination of both.
That leads me back to your original question, in that, whichever way you decide to go will likely require a fair amount of prep from you. And that is really a good thing. As Malwing implied, there is nothing wrong with sticking with the basics at first. But becoming a good GM is something that happens in the doing. So go ahead and do it, and don't worry about mistakes or missing a rule here or there. You will learn and get better as you go.
I usually have four or five players at a time. But I have run many solo games and a few two-player games. Cevah's advice is solid; I, too have allowed some small control of the NPCs in such games to go the players, with the understanding that I decide what/if the NPCs will do in severe situations, and also RP them in non-combat, etc.
I also limit them, as Cevah said, and adjust the encounters in the campaign to accent the abilities of the PCs, tooling as many crucial elements as possible to keep the spotlight on the PCs.
Another thing I do, in order to keep the PCs central, is to revolve the NPCs in situations like this, so that there is a nice selection of companions, and so none of them ever take over. This has a nice side-effect of creating a real sense of community for the players, where they have a lot of friends, allies, and even some people they are not too sure about.
When I read this on CNN last night, they said that the only thing they were relatively sure of was that speed was a factor. But as has been mentioned, Walker was not driving; his friend was.
The other thing that struck me as kind of oddly tragic, was that the crash occurred only 300 yards from the place where his own charity had just had a fund raiser. Just... weird and sad.
The question in this case, since the creature has both swim and land speeds, is, does the sand at the shoreline count as difficult terrain? And yes, it does, because your feet tend to sink in it. So the creature cannot actually charge on the shoreline using its land speed.
You are correct that crocodilians, killer whales, and even sometimes sharks (amongst other aquatic or semi-aquatic creatures), do indeed attack by ambush by throwing themselves up onto the shoreline in a quick, charge-like attack. They allow their momentum to carry them forward into the surf.
I would say this is something like combining a jump with a charge, for want of a better analogy. Now, I often allow characters in my games to combine a jump (Acrobatics) check into their charge, so long as they can land in a free square at the end of the movement to complete the attack. I don't think it is unreasonable to allow this creature the same. It seems like it is the best, easiest and most realistic way of doing it. Barring a ranked Acrobatics check, go with Dex or Strength (since the creature has to cover some distance). Just set the DC by the Long Jump table in Core, counting from where the surf begins and the target sits. If the check succeeds, the attacker lands adjacent and the charge is resolved. If the check fails, the attacker is stopped in the surf until its next action.
Now, your doubting Thomasina friend may object to this, since it is not explicitly stated to be a function of the rules. But it jibes fairly well with what whales, etc., do, and that's something she can see in any National Geographic special. Point her to YouTube or Netflix.
I actually tooled up a wizard with Hand of the Apprentice and took a feat to allow him to use it with a nice sized sword. I did this for story reasons (went along with the plot of the campaign).
He was a fine wizard, who just happened to have a decent ranged attack and some skill with a blade. So what? Was I really such an idiot and a terrible player because I sacrificed a feat for some flavor, rather than some big fat metamagic trick?
Personally, I've never been fond of most of the metamagic feats, anyway.
Taku Ooka Nin wrote:
Uh... no. As I understand the wealth by level system (and as I use it), the total wealth of each PC should include those consumables. You are not just counting gold, you are counting the gold tied up in property, and counting that against the total.
So if they keep the consumable, you just count that toward the total of their treasure. If they sell it, they actually end up with a little less, since they are only getting about half the value.
This isn't perfect. It would be a really neurotic GM who had to keep track of his PCs' wealth perfectly balanced per level down to the copper. But I think your calculations may be missing a crucial element in that ALL property, not just gold coins, counts toward the total WBL. At least, that's what it looks like from what you're saying here.
It sounds to me like you were being persistent in an area the GM did not wish to explore (you call it "logic," but whatever your argument and however sound, it was NOT one the GM wanted to have). The GM likely has other plans for the adventure. He probably did not intend to spend as much time with the Mage Tower as you seem to wish to. It likely was just a small, passing thing for him, on his way to the actual meat of whatever he had planned.
By insisting on making the tower a major part of your character's life, you are insisting the GM change his plans to suit you, and in essence, to rearrange his world and the story he is trying to guide, to suit as well.
Now, on the one hand, I understand how frustrating it can be when a player wants to go off on a tangent. I have, for many years, played off and on with a player who has a history of becoming really disinterested in whatever it is the rest of the party wants to do, and tries to run off in some random direction, and drag everyone with him. He especially loved to do this when he sensed that a particular area of the world had not yet been fleshed out. I pride myself on making very detailed worlds where the PCs can head off and explore randomly. I try to make as big a sandbox as possible, in addition to the various plots and stories available. But this guy seemed to sense whenever I had not yet done the work for an area, and then INSISTED on going there, throwing all the rest of the work I had already done out the window.
Now, in my player's case, he did it on purpose to bother me. He can be a very adversarial person in that regard. I don't think you did anything purposefully to throw off your GM, but you mention you did understand that he was trying to guide you away from this character direction, yet you insisted.
It does help to keep in mind that many GMs put gigantic amounts of energy and work into their worlds, and sometimes when players focus on random little elements, and will not let them go, no matter how much the GM hints that whatever the player wants is simply not going to happen... well, that can be irksome.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
I think this GM handled this poorly and a bit childishly. Clearly, you were not going to take a hint in-game. That's fine. The best thing for the GM to do would then be to simply ask you if you would mind talking about the tower after the session, and could you continue with the quest at this time. Afterwards, he could inform you that the tower is not a major element in the game that he intends to flesh out or pursue.
It is the story of your character, as well, of course. It's no fun sometimes to have limitations on where you can go and what you can do in-world. But on the other hand, the GM has limited time and resources, and so do the rest of the players (it's THEIR story, too!), so sometimes you have to bite the bullet and play a little more cooperatively, story-wise.
Otherwise, depending on how much freedom you want and expect, you may have to find a GM who is willing to run a more sandboxy, more PC-centric campaign. Believe me, they are out there. And you will have more fun with one of those - and more success - than you will trying to force your will on a GM whose style does not match your own.
I think what you're really asking here is, "how to challenge the party when one character is more powerful than the others?"
Which is different from asking whether it's right to target a specific character (I assume you mean "character" and not really "player").
If your problem is challenging this one character without killing the entire group, there really is no way to accomplish this without either helping the rest of the group to optimize, or nerfing the character in question. In the long run, having a discussion with everybody as to how you can equalize them and get them all on the same footing is going to be less complicated and much less deadly to the rest of the party than trying to challenge the powerful guy by throwing in bigger and bigger meanies, while trying to fight around the others.
If you're actually asking if it is okay to have baddies come after a single character, then I have two responses.
1. No, not if your objective is to knock him down or take him down a notch to equalize him with the "less powerful" heroes. See what I said above. You need to talk to the whole group about the imbalance.
2. Yes, it is perfectly fine to assign bad guys to individual characters for reasons of story. For instance, somebody might be the child of some notorious conqueror, and his old enemies might target the child. Or, maybe one of the characters simply pissed off the wrong gangster. Or perhaps one of the party has unwittingly snatched up a magic item that somebody else is after.
I often switch the spotlight between characters to add a personal touch to each of their stories. The trick is to make sure everybody gets a fair share of the spotlight - that everybody gets a turn and a chance to be chased by their own villains. In any case, unless they are caught alone, the others will in most cases jump in to help. And when they are alone, you just make sure to tool it to be fair.
Snooping around the Internet, bored, I stumbled upon this illustration.
The site it is on says it is an illustration by one Anthony Saris, adapted from work by Fred Freeman, and dates to 1964.
I can't help but notice how Aboleth-like this is, with the row of eyes and general fishiness. Makes me wonder if this was an inspiration to the D&D folks who created that creature?
Zhayne is well-known for two things:
1. He HATES alignment.
B. He LOVES Eberron.
Alignment is no different than any other guiding statistic or description of your character, and is very useful as a guide to playing him.
Alignment is also a part of the game mechanic as it relates to certain spells, supernatural abilities, and magic item effects. So it can only be ignored with a lot of work, and probably too much work to be worth ignoring it. So you may as well get used to it.
No, real human beings cannot be pigeonholed into alignments because real human beings are very complicated and the real world is different from a fantasy world. (Well, maybe a few Nazis could be roped into alignments - those guys were pretty evil as we understand evil.)
All that said, Pathfinder is not the real world and it does not involve real human beings. It is fantasy game wherein fantasy characters involve themselves in fantasy behavior, and where alignment is a palpable aspect of each character's nature.
Back on topic, Chaotic people generally love freedom or have total freedom as part of a sense of themselves. A simple way to look at it is that Chaotic Good people want everybody to be happy and treated well, but do not want to be held back by laws or regulations. Chaotic Neutral people could give or take the happiness of others, so long as they are left to their own devices. And Chaotic Evil people enjoy inflicting pain and taking what they want, and have no compunctions about doing either.
Christopher LaHaise wrote:
But the difference between being a good GM and a not-so-good GM is not assuming that every player would think like you do, but learning what your players actually think.
I appreciate that you have your own feelings on "soft GMs," but I am not sure the majority of players would agree with you (I don't either as GM or player). GMing is about a lot more than just raining pain down on PCs and forcing them to live with the consequences. There is a lot of nuance to it. Sometimes, for drama or story's sake, you must fudge. That may seem antithetical to your sense of realism or danger, or whatever, but it should be part of every GM's toolkit.
Being a hardcase has its place. It's another tool in that kit. Being just one or the other is the real danger.
I think it would be wise to consider whether every foe should act like a serious, trained military officer/unit or whether humor, drama, random elements, in-fighting, and all the other fog of war would make for a game that is more fun and more interesting.
That's fun. I run encounters like this fairly often.
But what you're talking about here, with the terrain and cover, and the 15 goblins split up, is really just a bunch of smaller encounters that seem like a larger encounter because they all took place in basically one location.
But basically, these are individual encounters. It's the difference between spreading the party's daily allotment of encounters throughout and entire day, or just having them happen back to back. Six of one/half dozen of the other.
One of the most fun things about the reincarnate spell, going back all the way to 1st Ed, was that you could be reincarnated as either sex (as well as any playable race). So strictly going by that, no souls do not have a sex, per se.
This does not stop a reincarnated soul from remembering its former life and still "feeling" male or female. The soul could still identify with its previous form (the player probably will, at any rate). But the point is, the soul itself is gender neutral. (I suppose if you want to go for more realism, the hormones and genes of the new form ought to determine their sexuality to some extent.)
As to becoming an outsider, as has been pointed out, some outsiders come in only one gender, or their gender counterpart is maybe not well known enough or useful enough to have been adapted to the game. I suppose there is a certain irony in a character of one gender being punished for its sins by being forced into a form of the opposite gender, provided those sins centered around treating the opposite sex poorly.
As to those outsiders that are not gender specific, I suppose it is just a part of our culture to default them to males (especially when such iconic female demons and devils exist to compare them with), but it doesn't have to be that way.
So, you beat me to what I was going to point out, which is that you can read the protected writing yourself with no problem.
And since explosive runes is intended for the use for which you have used it, in causing harm to somebody sneaking a peak at your personal stuff, I have to repeat what Zhayne asked, "discuss what?"
More to the point, so what?
Your argument is incredibly dubious. It follows no logic. It begs the question as to what is the motive for the good creature to engage in such acts, and then ignores the ultimate question of whether or not engaging in those acts actually shifts the character from good to evil. The argument becomes paradoxical, a circle. That implies your answer is nothing more than one of convenience.
We don't merely risk damage to others when we torture or prolong pain. We risk something to ourselves. I think that is the main thing missed in these alignment discussions, but it actually should be the thing we most keep in mind. We too often reduce the question to one of how the other guy feels, or worse, simply to the act itself. We forget our own motives. We forget that our characters are supposed to have souls. And souls can become damaged by our own behavior (in the game, anyway; in real life we are talking about our psyches). This is why our military teaches a code of conduct. It is why countries get together and compose conventions of war to outline what conduct is acceptable. It is because somebody who indulges in awful behavior, for whatever reason, risks becoming a dangerous civilian when he is finally released into the population. Indulging in awful behavior CHANGES us.
Now, personally, I find your last comment a tad frightening. You should understand that killing your enemy through torture is wrong on your most human, elemental level. You should just know it, instinctively. But either way, once you begin to understand what I have written above, the question of whether or not torturing somebody with a knife just to kill them becomes much clearer. Clearly, it is not a good act. Clearly, it threatens the fabric of what constitutes the character. Just as it would a real person in real life.
In real life, good people must be forced to harm others. People who do so freely and take their time doing so, rather than simply ending it, are questionable in their morality, at best. You would not argue against that in a court of law. Arguing against it here is just a convenience provided by the game.
Yeah, but it's not the fighter you're trying to nerf, right? It's the synth.
Isn't that the character you started this thread about?
As some have pointed out, the synth is better tricked than the other PCs. The game is not imbalanced. Your players are not of the same experience or depth of understanding of the game.
You take four people, put them in a room, and only one of them gets the game well enough to optimize and has read every chapter thoroughly, you are going to end up with imbalance, unless:
a. The GM helps the others build up their characters
b. The optimizing player helps the others build up their characters
c. One of the other players finally gets it and helps everybody
b. The GM or the optimizing player nerfs the optimized character
This is a dynamic of the group. Stop blaming the game and Paizo and just fix it.
This gets brought up a lot. You could probably do a search and find enough supply of these threads to answer your every question.
For the most part, good people don't want to tear others apart, so a simple killing blow to end the threat is enough for most of us. I would say that a person who needs to then rend the corpse into little pieces may or may not have an issue with alignment, but at least has an issue with some sort of anger or mental disorder.
Yes, some people might look at a particular weapon and deem it too nasty or unrefined, or even brutal for their alignment. I can see that, and even agree with it in some cases. On the other hand, dead is dead. So really, I would categorize something that prolonged pain, rather than killing outright, as fitting that category.
In general, despite what some here will likely try to tell you, prolonging pain is pretty much NOT the act of a good person. That's a universal given for most of us. Frankly, I worry about the posters here that try to hem-haw against that argument. But then, I doubt they are torturing or killing anybody in real life, so I guess it doesn't hurt anything to let them have their (admittedly twisted) fantasies.
Finally, I personally object to using the word "slaughter" where "kill" fits better. An honorable fighter or soldier who simply kills his opponent and when necessary is not "slaughtering" anybody. To slaughter really means to use traditional means of killing an animal for food, but its modern connotation implies somebody is viciously (and perhaps unnecessarily) running around brutally slashing anybody he sees into bits.
If you wish to speak about brutal people killing indiscriminately, use "slaughter." If you're talking about a soldier fighting honorably, use "kill."
I am not familiar with Burnt Offerings, but it sounds to me like most everything they have encountered so far is a straight up melee fight. Of course, a party with two barbarians and a fighter is going to clean house in any level-appropriate situation where they are up against a single, or only few opponents, in melee.
I would add a few combatants and flank them. And ranged attackers are going to help to increase challenge. You might adjust some melee encounters to allow some of the combatants to use ranged weapons before closing.
The Song of Ice and Fire RPG has an injury chart. I tried to adapt it a bit to our game a few years back, but my players balked. In hindsight, I don't blame them. Too much of Pathfinder's mechanic is reliant on the more abstract nature of combat, and introducing specific injuries into it can really unbalance things.
Lord Snow wrote:
My group has always been very good with "group think." In the scenario you mention, my players would have no problem allowing the answer to be given, in-game, by a smarter character. The player of the barbarian would get all pats on the back, and even more thanks for allowing the group to play a little more "realistically" by allowing the wizard to speak the answer.
(This is not to say that sometimes we don't let the barbarian roleplay dumb luck and give the answer himself - that can be fun - and funny - too.)
We just play it by ear.
Yeah, but those are things your character would indeed have learned from the confrontation. Damage reduction's entry in the Bestiary actually states that the attacker understands that the damage is somehow being mitigated. And as to your spells, you could clearly see they were not working. So your character has that knowledge.
Where you messed up - you "metagamed" - was when you did research out of character, then applied that research to your character without finding some way to emulate the research in-game and in-character.
How did your character come upon this knowledge? Does he have access to the Internet? No, but you do. And you gave your character knowledge gleaned from it. You need to find a way to work that knowledge in with your GM. If nothing else, ask him if you would be able to find these tactics in books at your church's library. Or ask if you can use some divining spell to obtain some of the info.
On the other hand, you did discuss with your GM before the final battle. In his shoes, I would have changed things up with the encounter so you would not know exactly what to expect. Or, I would have worked out the matter of how your character got this knowledge, again, BEFORE the final encounter. That he waited until you made short work of the golem, then got angry about it, seems silly and a little ego-centric.
I just can't think of angels on the PMP just wandering. They seem so serious. Like they would only come to the world on a real mission. It seems to me that any player worth his salt is going to wonder why there are angels about, and is going to expect some sort of serious answer to his question.
I love the idea of angels on the open road. However, if it were me, I would make some sort of background story for it, and over time I would escalate their numbers, as well as increase whatever danger it is they are fighting, and probably expect my PCs to get involved on one side or the other.
In short, this seems more like a full campaign point, rather than fodder for the wandering monster table.
It seems to me nobody ever reads page 17 of Core. If more people did, they'd KNOW how the game defines Charisma and would not have to speculate or take sides in something that is intended to be more unified and universal.
Lord Snow wrote:
Whereas where I live, female gamers are in great numbers, comprising nearly 50% of the customers at our FLGS, and about 50% - sometimes the majority - of the players at my table.
I've been considering these things may be regional for awhile now, myself.
Christopher LaHaise wrote:
There are two things you're forgetting that are causing your view on this to slant.
One is that you are not obligated to include every single monster in all of the books in your campaign world. Nothing says you must fill your world with horrors. Which leads to the second point.
And that is that real, terrible monsters are supposed to be rare in most cases. Otherwise, they would lose their imposing nature and just be every day occurrences.
Yes, there are campaigns that take you to planes where most all the denizens want to eat your soul. And there are campaigns where those denizens have invaded the world of mere mortals. But those are extreme campaigns, and they prove the rule that such an invasion is terrible and terrifying exactly because it is NOT the norm. It is terrible because usually the world is NOT populated with demons and devils and other horrid things.
I think the default fantasy world, as well as the default campaign, resembles the mythmaking of old. You are raised by kindly elves, trained to fight by a wise centaur, and on your quest to defeat some rare, usually ancient, one-of-a-kind evil, you find various allies, sometimes including forest spirits, elementals, and unicorns. And if you encounter a ghost haunting a ruin along the way, it is not scary because the world is entirely populated with ghosts. It is scary because coming into a ghost-haunted ruin is a rare and unique experience.