Taja the Barbarian |
Back in the early 90s, we played the Dark Sun modules and one of the nice feature of the initial 'flip book' design was the large amount of art the DM could easily share with the players.
Of course, they often ruined this by putting labels on the pictures, some of which were spoilers for the encounter (picture of a horde of undead shambling toward you was great, but the 'Friends???' kinda gave the 'this is not a fight' surprise away).
Another true Dark Sun adventure story:
- DM: Here's a picture of the ruined structure you just found.
- Me: Alright, lets get exploring, and everyone watch out for the Dwarven Banshee.
- DM: (Incredulously) How the heck did you know there's a banshee here?
- Me: It's right there in the picture!
So, pictures are great, but only when done correctly...
BlarkNipnar |
I'm way off in the deep end on this; I actually build custom monsters to match models I have or I build custom models that match the monsters I'd like to run (or I'll find a cool model and look for something in the beastiarys that is close enough to mold into it as is or as a reskin.)
This comes mostly from me being a 40k nerd who loves kit-bashing and customizing.
-My harpies? Daemonettes with Tyranid Gargoyle wings green stuffed on em
-Animated trees? these weird Malifaux haunted tree things
-Goblins? Warhammer gobbos!
-Skeletons? older (vampire counts?) Skeleton models and Tomb-kings Skeleton Archers
etc..
It's bad enough I'll build entire sections of the map or entire campaigns to end in a penultimate big-ol-fancy model of some kind.
______
One can certainly get by by simply marking things down or using coins, etc; but I basically only run campaigns because I enjoy building/painting models. When they plop down the players often pick them up and ogle them to good effect.
DungeonmasterCal |
No. I keep most of my books on the shelf, using d20pfsrd.com to prep my games. I print off the monsters and their stats from the website. I will sometimes go to the book from where the description comes from to look at the picture but most often I just describe it from the text on the printed page. I'm pretty good at that sort of thing and it works well enough with our group.
awbattles |
I strongly prefer it when my GMs do show them. One, some people are better visualizers than others, and some monsters are more easily visualized than others. And some are just better known in mythology. a harpy or hydra? I don't need help, I can imagine it just fine from the myriad representations I've seen before. A ghast? Well...I can kind of imagine a ghoul, but even that is kind of vaguely just "zombie-like" in my mind.
From a realistic perspective, the characters would be able to see the creatures, so it seems fair for the players to as well, unless they actively dislike being shown what they "should" see instead of what they imagine. Once I get the general idea in my head, my brain takes over and fills in the details anyway since I don't have a photographic memory or anything. It just imprints a guide for my imagination to draw from going forward.
Klorox |
DMs avoid showing me pics, due to a legend that I know alL the monster stats by heart and that showing me the picture, letting me know what beast it is, would give me unfair advantage... to be true, that legend was true in AD&D1 but I never renewed the performance for later editions, heck, I only have the 1st MM from 4ed, only the first 3 beastiaries from PF, and not even the 5ed MM.
DungeonmasterCal |
Another reason I don't do it is because we don't play around a table (sadly). We play my living room, sitting on the couches and chairs available so the distance from me to some players is too great for them to see the picture clearly, anyway. And one of my players Skypes in, so that also doesn't help her.