|
I must say I find the OP's request one of the strangest adventure design requests in a long time. Just weird. To me, anyway.Really? Seems odd to me that you wouldn't want to encourage authors to utilize all the great new stuff in the bestiaries rather than defaulting to the "classics". Ce la vie.
At least it's saving me money on bestiary purchases. :)
See, he's not saying that encouraging authors to use new monsters is strange. He's saying that your suggestion that SRD monsters be banned from all future APs / modules is strange. I myself would go beyond strange, and straight to utterly ridiculous.
I'm indifferent to the OP's goals and all.
But I'm gonna be honest. I have never, ever seen a published adventure with an octopus before.
How about a decapus? Anyone? A no-prize to the first poster who can place the monster.
At least it's saving me money on bestiary purchases. :)
Ah, I get it now.
Dear OP - Buying APs shouldn't make up for the fact that you only buy adventure books and don't create your own adventures with other materials available to you and everyone else. I understand economic realities, but insisting that something be done so you can get a 2-for-1 just isn't going to happen.
(Psst. People LOVE monster books because they can find wonderful creatures to use in the adventures they create, not because it means Paizo will now cram them all into their new APs.)
Creative Director
|
RPG adventures never start with the author saying "Monster X is cool and underused, I'm going to write a module featuring those"? Colour me skeptical.
I suspect "Escape From Meenlock Prison" was inspired by the meenlock monster entry, for instance.
That's an entirely different topic from "Don't use familiar monsters in adventures anymore."
Adventure writers OFTEN say "this monster's not often used, let's use them!" For example, look at "The Brinewall Legacy."
How about a decapus? Anyone? A no-prize to the first poster who can place the monster.B3? That's the only module I've seen one in. Assuming you're talking about the ten-tentacled octopi monster.
Correctomundo! B3: Palace of the Silver Princess, with the big-mouthed muppet-like monster done on the wonderfully classic cover by Earl Otus, if I remember correctly.
|
How about a decapus? Anyone? A no-prize to the first poster who can place the monster.B3? That's the only module I've seen one in. Assuming you're talking about the ten-tentacled octopi monster.
There are also several in the adventure paths.
|
Correctomundo! B3: Palace of the Silver Princess, with the big-mouthed muppet-like monster done on the wonderfully classic cover by Earl Otus, if I remember correctly.
I love that cover soooo much. Even though it's crazy. :D
There's also one in an adventure path.
Sweet! Gives me a reason to finish my RotRL AP set.
Or maybe like this:Designer 1: "Ok people, we have reams of cool new monsters that we all believe enhance the game otherwise we would not have bothered publishing them, right? So lets write some cool new stories that use them."
Designer 2: "Ok. Lets start off with kobolds and a shark for part one..."
Designer 1: "Uhh, hold up. Part one is set near a seaside town where kobolds are known to live. Lets let the GMs add the sharks and what not, they know they exist and are familiar with them. Give me something new. Here, take a look at these bestiaries we just published-"
Designer 3: "I know! Instead of kobolds how about goblins and ghouls? They live in the area too."
Designer 1: "True, I do love goblins, and ghouls are integral to our setting, but I don't think you're seeing my point. A decent GM can add a goblin or a shark or an octopus. We are the pros though. You know? The dreamers of the dream and all? We have access to all the monster books every day. Here, I brought everyone a copy of our latest bestiary lets see what we can come up with!"
I want those designers to fail. They're absolute douchebags. I want them to lose their jobs. I want their partners to leave them, and take the kids, the dog, and their favourite books with them. I want them to lose their homes and have to live in the street. I wand them to have to give up their bodies to disgusting old men for drug money. I want them to be hunted like dogs by the police for crimes they were framed for. I want them to fail repeatedly at suicide. And then I want them to become undead and be tormented forever.
That is a pale shadow of what I feel for these guys. My actual feelings are actually far worse. I couldn't write them down because my keyboard would catch fire and burn down an orphanage. The internet would die.
If you now reveal that those are three actual Paizo employees, I will not only cancel all my subscriptions, I would also declare war on the universe they're in.
I just hope that the new monsters have more pronounceable names.
Not to mention "Fortress of the Stone Giants".
They're stone giants. They're not exactly underused rarities nobody has ever heard about. The adventure wasn't written to give those poor little giants a boost of popularity.
Apparently, there was a talk between Wolfgang Baur and someone from Paizo when they wanted him to write the thing. Apparently, he was a bit sceptical at first, but when they told him it was basically the Stone Giants sequel to Against the Giants, he all but wet himself for awesome.
I doubt anyone will ever have such a reaction when it comes to Redoubt of the Monster of the Week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if the classic, "common" monsters were never used, the new, "exotic" monsters wouldn't feel special those times they're featured in an adventure.
Anyway, if the OP had stated "I wish Paizo would use more of their new, cool monsters" rather than "I wish Paizo would never use the classic monsters" I think this thread would be far more positive :)
How about a decapus? Anyone? A no-prize to the first poster who can place the monster.I'm indifferent to the OP's goals and all.
But I'm gonna be honest. I have never, ever seen a published adventure with an octopus before.
Spires of Xin-Shalast had a vampire one.
And I'm sure it counts. Is just like oktopus. In fact, is dekapus - is two better. If you don't like it, cut off two arms, have oktopus.
(you need to read those last couple of lines with a ridiculous faux Eastern European accent.)
I just hope that the new monsters have more pronounceable names.
Your limited point of view just brags with your close-mindedness, human.
Your limited point of view just brags with your close-mindedness, human.
Rrarrr! That should be "closed-mindedness"! As written, you're saying his mindedness is close. Close to what? Rrarrr!
|
RPG adventures never start with the author saying "Monster X is cool and underused, I'm going to write a module featuring those"? Colour me skeptical.I suspect "Escape From Meenlock Prison" was inspired by the meenlock monster entry, for instance.
Or the TSR giants series. Not to mention "Fortress of the Stone Giants".
I must say I find the OP's request one of the strangest adventure design requests in a long time. Just weird. To me, anyway.Really? Seems odd to me that you wouldn't want to encourage authors to utilize all the great new stuff in the bestiaries rather than defaulting to the "classics". Ce la vie.
At least it's saving me money on bestiary purchases. :)
Can somebody notify Bugley please, because I'd really love to see these two fine gentlemen discuss the mertis of including non-core material in APs.
Meanwhile, I'll be preparing Caramel Popcorn for everyone.
Your limited point of view just brags with your close-mindedness, human.Rrarrr! That should be "closed-mindedness"! As written, you're saying his mindedness is close. Close to what? Rrarrr!
Close to non-existent. This is the perfect example. Your ridiculous attempt at communication, this "language". It is even less relevant than your kind, but you seem to place great importance in it.
That would crack us up if humour wasn't irrelevant, too.
Ah well, in a billion years, nobody will even remember your race.
|
|
The thing about fantasy RPGs is they are primarily a non-visual entertainment medium. Every game is basically a conversation but with dice and character sheets. When you remove the classic staples which have been around since people have been telling stories you actually make the conversation more frustrating.
An example:
GM: You walk into the crypt and see three ghouls tearing the skin off a Paralyzed victim.
Player: I turn undead!
Player 2: I attack!
Counter to this:
GM: You walk into the crypt and see three exegaunts tearing the skin off a paralyzed victim.
Player: what's an exegaunt?
GM: it's a horrible creature that paralyzes victims with its pseudopods and eats the skin off their flesh.
Player: what's it look like?
GM: * opens up book to find description* er this horrible jellyfish like creature drips with venomous ichor.
Player 2: whatever I attack.
Without having that common vocabulary you actually slow down every encounter. Once or twice a book is no big deal. Every combat and you reduce both emersion and play time.
I can has moar classic monstars?
You can haz!
*le wild gift appears*
|
Creative Director
|
How about a decapus? Anyone? A no-prize to the first poster who can place the monster.B3? That's the only module I've seen one in. Assuming you're talking about the ten-tentacled octopi monster.There are also several in the adventure paths.
** spoiler omitted **
In fact, we have a decapus in THREE adventure paths now.
|
Dudemeister, a GM that doesn't properly describe what the players see, is frankly, a bad GM.
I can't believe how passionate everyone is about having the same monsters appear again and again.
No wonder popular culture has had to endure horror flicks about the same old monsters for about a century now. I'm sure you folks are just going giddy for the latest vampire movies too.
As for me, I'll be writing a session about a seaside village that has a tide of a few thousand Exegaunts wash up on its shore after an enterprising fisherman catches something mysterious and tentacley in his net out at sea and brings it back to the town to be examined.
But hey, 'The Orcs are Attacking!' is a good idea too.
First off KaeYoss your my hero of the day. :D
As for the OP of this thread, adventures are designed for the setting. If the adventure takes place in Kyonin then buddy expect elves and lots of them, do not expect a bunch of monsters that have no business being there.
For example the setting is in a forest in Kyonin.
DM: You come upon a clearing with a large sparkling pool at its center, you notice some movement with in the pool.
Player 1: I walk over to the pool and look into the water.
DM: Your hit by a dominate monster.
Player 1: Huh why?
DM: Their was an Aboleth in that pool.
Player 1: What? How did it get their? Theirs not even a river for miles.
Makes no sense but hey at least its not an elf patrol. You can get away with one odd monster or two, which if you look at a number of adventures they in fact do. But you have to keep to the setting and sense or else everything is just random which in my exp never works out. Its no fun playing a game with no direction, sense, or reason behind it.
Thats my 2c
I can definitely see where the OP is coming from. The classic monsters are classic for many reasons, but their legacy means that many people playing the game know all about them. It really isn't that hard to substitute monsters you don't like with the staples, because you know how best to work them in to be appropriate (for example, in Rivers Run Red, I worked some orcs and goblins in as followers of the big bad, because I wanted some variety and I knew they'd work easily). Newer monsters are often deprived of any real fleshing out, especially as most of them are left to languish on only one page with little flavor text. Working more of them in as key features of a published work allows the monster to have better flavor, better understanding, and better traction.
For example, I wouldn't necessarily use phase spiders or rhasts or chuuls or wrackspawn or Cetaceals, Akatas, Movanic Devas, Blindheims, Chupacabras, Cacodaemons, et al. But if I see them used in particularly inventive and interesting ways in a module, with a lot of really gripping flavor text that helps me to really "get" the monster and appreciate it, then I might find myself using them more often. And, if I don't really like those monsters in a given encounter, I can probably find a decent substitute from the staples without any real help.
Doesn't mean that designers should be forced to use nothing but the newest monsters, but it would be nice for them to be thinking a little outside their comfort zone to make newer monsters stand out and make creatures that are not so common gain the traction that they might deserve.
For example - a lot of people raised a ruckus back in the DDM days when WotC put out the Wrackspawn and Bloodhulks without any precedent (they hadn't been published in a monster book yet). I loved them, because they were actually really interesting, and their mini game mechanics really inspired me (I love encounters with bloodhulks, because PCs invariably reach for the prestidigitation spells to just stop being covered in blood afterwards, which is really cool). A lot of monsters that designers spent a lot of time on don't inspire me, but if I could see them used really creatively, maybe they would. Maybe I'd be using Blindheims and Cacodaemons if I'd seen them be really awesome in an AP. The Akata is a monster I'd probably never look twice at if I hadn't played through Second Darkness, but I love them for the amount of detail and interest the AP generated.
I can't believe how passionate everyone is about having the same monsters appear again and again.
You are misunderstanding. It's not being passionate about having the same-old-same-old all the time, it's about not having change for the sake of change.
Your attempt at superiority with the rest of the post was inappropriate, un-called for and ego-stroking.
In fact, we have a decapus in THREE adventure paths now.How about a decapus? Anyone? A no-prize to the first poster who can place the monster.B3? That's the only module I've seen one in. Assuming you're talking about the ten-tentacled octopi monster.There are also several in the adventure paths.
** spoiler omitted **
Yup, and this is an example of my point. The vampiric decapus in Spires was awesome. A (relatively) new creature with a new spin. My group loved it! And you know what? I added some wraiths (or some kind of mundane undead) to the battle as well for my own reasons. An encounter we still talk about today.
I added the mundane but YOU GUYS (the pros) brought the AWESOME. I would never have come up with a vampric decapus on my own. Thanks for the inspiration. More please. Don't worry, I've got the orcs and such covered, just help me out with the weird. ;)
And they do. All the time. Decapi, Sinspawn, new and interesting breeds of giant, the Oni, Ogrekin, Proteans, Urdefhan, Mothers of Oblivion, the various breeds of Lamiakin...every adventure path is packed with new and unusual monsters.
I agree with you: using nothing but old monsters would be stale and boring. But never using old monsters would be a mess, losing something in coherence and structure. You need a balanced diet of both.
|
|
Dudemeister, a GM that doesn't properly describe what the players see, is frankly, a bad GM.
I can't believe how passionate everyone is about having the same monsters appear again and again.
No wonder popular culture has had to endure horror flicks about the same old monsters for about a century now. I'm sure you folks are just going giddy for the latest vampire movies too.
As for me, I'll be writing a session about a seaside village that has a tide of a few thousand Exegaunts wash up on its shore after an enterprising fisherman catches something mysterious and tentacley in his net out at sea and brings it back to the town to be examined.
But hey, 'The Orcs are Attacking!' is a good idea too.
A bad GM? If a GM has to describe every monster in longhand in order to create an accurate mental image for the players that's a lot of wasted time especially if there's already a familiar monster that fills the same niche.
I've asked my players what their favorite monsters are. Goblins, kobolds and dragons. People like to be the slayers of Dragons. It's the vocabulary of the game.
Facing unusual or rare monsters should be unusual or rare. The only window into the game is what the players experience that means a majority of encounters should be with common monsters and the more unusual monsters should be in rarer more unusual encounters.
Go ahead and run the invasion of the exegaunts, but I bet your players will sometimes wistfully think about facing off against a dragon. Tropes and metaphors and cliche aren't bad things, they're building blocks with which we build a shared experience.
|
|
A bad GM? If a GM has to describe every monster in longhand in order to create an accurate mental image for the players that's a lot of wasted time especially if there's already a familiar monster that fills the same niche.
I need to explain where I’m coming from a little bit more. My players have loved fantasy and have read the monster’s manual. If you drop a classic and you drop the name, they recognise the threat before it’s even taken an action. I’m sure everyone here is in a similar boat.
Situation 1
DM: You see a villager pinned against the wall by two, grey-skinned undead humanoids with long claws and impossibly thin bodies.
As opposed to...
Situation 2
DM: You see a paralysed villager coated in a thick layer of slime. Floating above him, two otherworldly jellyfish begin to whip their tentacles at you.
Both of these descriptions have accurately given the players a reading of the situation and have kept the players on their toes because, even though they can see what’s happening, they don’t have that metagame experience to fall back on and rely upon. They also take about as much time.
However, if
DM: You see a paralyzed villager and two ghouls.
The experienced players immediately think …
Player thoughts: ‘Ah, they’re a low CR, they have paralysis - so let’s not let any low Fort save characters get in melee, turning will work, high ac should work against two claw attacks. I am not worried.’
But if situation 1 had occurred:
‘A grey skinned undead humanoid... It could be a ghoul. But it could be a necropolitan with class levels. It could be vampire spawn! It could be one of those Revenant things! Cripes! Should I sacrifice my BAB to raise my dodge bonus for a few rounds? I am concerned.’
Similarly, if you’re dropping new monsters with unknown abilities such as the jellyfish creatures mentioned in situation 2, the heroes are thinking tactically, they’re hoping the creatures isn’t going to have some surprise abilities and they’re cranking out their knowledge skills for that all important name or hints.
New or underutilised monsters have a great role in keeping the players on their toes. I’m not saying that classics can’t do this, but we all have players with metagame knowledge and surprising monsters can seriously inject some tension into the game. Variety is good.
Chuck: I can only assume you've written a lot of adventures with orcs attacking.
|
|
That's a GM style difference though. My players would much prefer to face ghouls to necropolitans since that's a far more iconic and interesting monster. Plus a ghoul can have class levels.
Look at at it like this as well, for half my players their first game was a pathfinder game. For the other half it was 3.0 or 3.5. They haven't even had the chance to fight one each of the SRD monsters. If you've reached a point where you can't see the magic of a player's first fight with a dragon or a goblin that's unfortunate. I for one am glad to see the Golarion twist on the classic monsters.
Every game might be somebody's first, and having hungerdark houndbeasts instead of wolves robs new players of an experience that is integral to the game.
I like weird monsters, off-beat templates and new creatures. Every AP issue has 4-6 more and that's grand. I also like seeing goblins, ogres, ghouls and dragons because seeing my player's faces when they've bested their first iconic monster, or seen surprise when an old monster exhibits a new behavior is part of the joy of GMing.
Leave the mix as is let common monsters be common and rare monsters be rare.
This thread reminded me that I so need to run Empire of the Ghouls next time I get a chance. Classic monster, imperial army, good stuff.
|
|
No wonder popular culture has had to endure horror flicks about the same old monsters for about a century now. I'm sure you folks are just going giddy for the latest vampire movies too.
Maybe we have to endure it because they bring in the most money? Because people aren't interested in a movie with a monster they don't know?
Seriously, would Alien have been as successful if it was titled 'Monster' with no references to being an alien creature?
How many Relic movies were there?
I can't believe how passionate everyone is about having the same monsters appear again and again.
I can't believe how indifferent some people are about classics and never want to see them. Why did I buy the Bestiary?
"Here's a book with classic monsters. Take a good look because that is the last you've seen of them. We never use them"
I'm sure you folks are just going giddy for the latest vampire movies too.
Depends on the film. If it's a good one, then sure.
But you, as the other guy, are in the wrong place. This is about Pathfinder. You want Scary Monster Of the Week the RPG.
The vampiric decapus in Spires was awesome. A (relatively) new creature with a new spin.
New? That thing is as old as I am. It's from first edition.
New that isn't.
The classic monsters are classic for many reasons, but their legacy means that many people playing the game know all about them.
And that is bad how? Plus, even though "many" might know all about them, many others don't. Saying "I'm a pro, I've been playing this for a long time, *I* know all the old monsters, *I* don't need them any more, so retire them for new ones." Is elitist crap.
It really isn't that hard to substitute monsters you don't like with the staples, because you know how best to work them in to be appropriate (for example, in Rivers Run Red, I worked some orcs and goblins in as followers of the big bad, because I wanted some variety and I knew they'd work easily).
Once again, this game isn't just about you. It's also about those players who haven't played this game for decades.
Plus, if you're both such experienced and great GMs, I don't see the problem. Shouldn't be hard to incorporate these new monsters. Walk in the park.
Doesn't mean that designers should be forced to use nothing but the newest monsters
Good, then we're agreed. Note that this thread is all about exactly that: Totally ignore the old monsters, be forced to use nothing but the newest monsters.
Nobody is saying that the new monsters should never be used.
It's not as if Paizo never uses "non-classic" monsters. Because they use them.
#49 has sinspawn and faceless stalkers.
#48 has linnorms, the Lich-Wolf and an alchemical golem
#47 has a dullahan, a dhampir, a nosferatu and witchfires.
I could go through every single AP and find new monsters.
PS. The Decapus is a 3.5 Open Gaming License monster. Not quite SRD, but the d20 Online SRD could list it if they chose to.PSS. All of the Paizo monsters are OGL. In the OP the term used is "3.5 SRD" which the decapus is NOT part of.
Paizo hasn't been using 3.5 SRD monsters for quite some time now. They use PRD monsters.
I need to explain where I’m coming from a little bit more. My players have loved fantasy and have read the monster’s manual. If you drop a classic and you drop the name, they recognise the threat before it’s even taken an action. I’m sure everyone here is in a similar boat.
Not really. I have good players. Players who don't abuse metagame knowledge.
Plus, you seem to have incompetent metagamers there. If they were at least competent at it, they'd have all monster books, and probably the APs, too. So whenever the GM mentions any monster out of a book, they recognise the thread.
No, this "players know about the old monsters so we need new ones" argument just doesn't work. If you use new monsters out of new books, they get and read the new books. It becomes an arms race. The solution is simply not to have an arms race.
Either that or never using any published monster - or adventure. Or anything someone sells.
Both of these descriptions have accurately given the players a reading of the situation and have kept the players on their toes because, even though they can see what’s happening, they don’t have that metagame experience to fall back on and rely upon. They also take about as much time.However, if
DM: You see a paralyzed villager and two ghouls.
The experienced players immediately think …
Player thoughts: ‘Ah, they’re a low CR, they have paralysis - so let’s not let any low Fort save characters get in melee, turning will work, high ac should work against two claw attacks. I am not worried.’
Your logic is flawed.
Situation whatever:
GM: "You see whatever"
Player: "My knowledge check result is X. What do I know about the critter?"
But if situation 1 had occurred:
‘A grey skinned undead humanoid... It could be a ghoul. But it could be a necropolitan with class levels. It could be vampire spawn! It could be one of those Revenant things! Cripes! Should I sacrifice my BAB to raise my dodge bonus for a few rounds? I am concerned.’
No. Wrong. They use their character's knowledge to see if they don't see more. Unless you deny them that knowledge. Which turns your world into a farce. Those characters are part of that world. They know about things, at least potentially. Giving deliberately vague descriptions and not letting them use the rules as written (because the rules as written allow for this, and for good reason) is simply bad GMing. Even if your excuse is "they're bad players and abuse metagame knowledge", because that just means that you're all bad
Paizo hasn't been using 3.5 SRD monsters for quite some time now. They use PRD monsters.Almost all of which are in the 3.5 SRD as well, and the 3e SRD before it.
No. Similar critters were in those SRDs. PRD changed them, they're not the same, technically.
We're splitting hairs here man, so we do it right.
This thread makes me sad.
Can't people go back to playing the game as they like and stop forcing their style on others as "the only true and approved" way?
If you don't like a particular creature in a particular AP - change it.
Where's the problem? Has your well of creativity run so dry that you can't think outside the box?
There is a gazillion monsters around, why not substitude one for the other?
I personally am sick of all the splat-book orcs and elves and cliché dwarves and halflings (especially those). In the CotCT I ran I substituted creatures where I felt them to be inappropriate for the style and mood I wanted to create. I replaced the Derro with crazed halfling necromancers, I replaced the hag with a giant morray - and guess what - people had fun!
Why not use things to your advantage? Toy with your players expectations. I was shocked to read the preface to Ashes at Dawn, where it was said, so many people had trouble getting their mind around working with vampires towards a common goal... hello??
This hobby is all about creativity - why adhere slavishly to written material? Can't we finally agree to disagree? Can't we finally admit that there are as many ways to roll this game as there are players out there - and that it is a good thing?
Can't people go back to playing the game as they like and stop forcing their style on others as "the only true and approved" way?Stop having opinions, guys! Can't you see that it's driving us apart!
Nicely painted black and white. There is a difference between having an opinion and having an attitude.