|
Hi there,
on a first glance you would think that the FRCS, FR monster compendium, and various campaign expansions provide plenty of information about where to find which monster on Faerûn.
On a closer look, though, just the core monster books offer such a vast number of different monsters, that I wonder: where to find which monster? Do all monsters presented in MM, MM2, FF, and MM3 show up in the FR at all??
There is a statement, that all core monsters have their place in Eberron. But what about the FR? MM3 offered detailed information on the habitats of certain monsters in Faerûn and Eberron. But what about the monsters without any such comment??
Some of my players (DMs of their own) seem to think that every monster available should be used in one adventure. I think, though, that such a concentration of monsters suspends belief. So what I would like to see is information on where to find which monsters, especially exotic ones that would not show up in every region (e.g. nagas, beholders). Of course there is an exception to every such "rule", but it would be a great start, especially for players and DMs new to the realms.
When I thought about how to provide this infromation, three alternatives came to my mind:
Proposal 1: Expand the Ecology articles. A short statement about known worlds where the specific monster lives, could be a great help. Very small world maps with shaded areas of habitats even better!
Proposal 2: Articles similar to the ones available on www.wizards.com that contain conversion tips on how to use core rule expansion books in Eberron. Why not similar articles in Dragon on how and where to dm monsters in the FR?
Proposal 3: An article with a "listing" like this:
- monster name
- region of habitats
- "role" (dominant, co-existing, enclaves, outsiders, fighting for survival, extinguished (-> ruins, "forgotten realms"!)
- relationships (i.e. friends/ enemies).
Ok. I am curious about what other readers' and the Dragon's stuff opinion on this is. Which proposal would you favour? Is there actually already some article like this in the stuff's drawers?
Greetings from Cologne, Germany,
Guenther
I look at ecologies articles as insights into the thinking of other gamers world-building, interesting, but only rarely a tool for my campaign, especially for intelligent races.
Maybe its because I'm older, maybe its because I read almost as much autobiographical travel writing as I do fantasy. But I tend to like relationships in my game worlds that are at least as complex and textured as those in the real world, I would like to think more so as races, magic, extraplaner, elemental, subterranean, aquatic, as tangible gods and their minons contest for influence in the world. Ecologies for me just don't get there, and for non-intelligent creatures, well they rationale either fits with my game world or it doesn't usually it doesn't. Thats not a slam on ecologies, like I said their interesting insights into other folks' game worlds.
My games are in my game world. I make the cultures and politics of that world fit what I think the players want. The same is true for the distribution of magic items, monsters distribution, which npcs are in residence, etc.
I use the crunchy stuff, feats, spells, classes, PrCs, etc. I especially rely on maps - though even there if I have time I like to make my own. My stuff's not perfect by any means - but the groups I've played with seem to enjoy it.
Basically this is a suggestion that you should take what works for you and focus on the flow of the game, the interaction around the table, and that everyone (yourself included) is having fun.
Thats not a very technical answer. And I appreciate that it is important to gamers to really be faithful to the context of the game world as written. If you are one of those I apologize for not addressing your question, and hope someone out there does.
|
|
I look at ecologies articles as insights into the thinking of other gamers world-building, interesting, but only rarely a tool for my campaign, especially for intelligent races.
(...)Thats not a very technical answer. And I appreciate that it is important to gamers to really be faithful to the context of the game world as written. If you are one of those I apologize for not addressing your question, and hope someone out there does.
Proposal #1 was not exactly my favourite one. ;-) I agree with much of what you wrote. In the end it is always the DM's choice which rules/ monsters etc. to use in his/ her campaign.
I already mentioned that some of my players dm in my group, too. They have very different opinions on usage of monster material from other sources. And I would like to agree on some "standard", preferrably an official one.
"Proposal #4": An article containing more back ground information and variety to existing monsters and races without adding more rules/ PrC etc. to the existing stack: E.g.Orc tribe a consists of weakly, cowardly orcs who rely on ambushes (rather goblin like). Orc tribe b is warlike turned reluctantly to merchants...
I start ranting again... :p
Guenther