The troll is the classic example. Instead of fire and acid, this particular subspecies is vulnerable to cold and sonic. The idea is to keep long-time players guessing and to help the bestiary stay fresh. The wolves in this forest are arboreal, and know spider climb. The water elemental comes from a hot spring and does fire damage. That rabbit is dynamite..
Reskinning monsters in surprising ways can keep "classic encounters" from stagnating, and for most GMs is the first step on the path to original critter building. However, I suspect there may be a downside, and that's where I'm curious about the board's opinion. Does this mess cause continuity problems? Do arbitrary changes to classic monster abilities like troll regeneration, dragon breath, or vampire weaknesses negatively affect the internal consistency of the game world? And if so, is that reason enough to avoid the practice?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it really depends on how it's being handled. Are all trolls vulnerable to cold and sonic or just this particular variety?
If you make changes to monsters that are commonly known in the world then players should be given a heads up to this fact prior to encountering the thing.
"hey, just so you know in my world orcs spit acid."
Also, monsters should be changed in a deliberate manner rather then just having abilities randomly swapped on them. If you're fighting trolls on the side of an active volcano it shouldn't be surprising to the players that fire doesn't work on them.
I don't think it breaks the game world so long as the changes you're making are handled with thoughtfulness. It's when you change things in a way that doesn't make sense to the current environment or spring something on players that their characters would reasonably know about (from growing up in that region/world). That it breaks things and makes players frustrated.
IMO new monsters as a player are always interesting even if behind the screen they're just existing monsters that have been tweeked a bit and given a face lift.
It really depends on the severity and frequency of the changes... if you change how a classic monster functions in every encounter with that monster to the point that your players are always guessing at its strengths and weaknesses then it absolutely causes a problem. Classic monsters have certain consistencies to them for a reason, they are supposed to be atleast somewhat predictable for a seasoned adventurer. If the party fights a lot of the same type of enemy then they should understandably know how best to deal with them.
On the other hand, adding in a new variant of a monster with a surprise twist on occasion is a great way to keep the party on their toes. However, it shouldn’t ever really be a one and done with these new varieties, unless there is a compelling reason. These new variants should always be worked into the world lore and made to feel natural, or if they are intended to be unnatural hype up that fact and weave a story around it.
You have to differentiate between changing all monster of a type in that setting, and creating subtypes.
As long as the GM is sensible when it comes to knowledge check, I see no reason why monsters have to be exactly as they appear in the Bestiaries. Using different names or different mechanics is fine. If something is supposed to be common knowledge in-setting, that should be a very easy (i.e. untrained-attemptable) knowledge check rather than done via metaknowledge anyway. To be clear, I strongly believe that the pieces of information a knowledge check reveals should be what one would remember the most about a creature. The most memorable thing about a D&D-style troll is that they regenerate unless affected by fire or acid. A knowledge check that just matches the DC should reveal that, not some less important/less memorable stuff. As long as the players trust the GM to provide the important information first, changing creature names is unproblematic.
Creating subtypes basically follows the same rules - as long as you don't try to trick your players, there shouldn't be a problem.
The difference appears when explicitly playing in an un-altered preexisting setting. Subtypes should still be easily doable, but changes to all creatures can be problematic for widespread ones. If vampires only sparkle in sunlight instead of bursting into flames, most conflicts with or involving vampires play out fundamentally different, and all books containing stuff about vampires are basically useless.
Of course, it all rests on the GM being sensible. Creatures should in general be adapted to their environment, that's how evolution works, and magical creatures following the same principle still feels natural. If aquatic trolls only regenerate when in water, that's fine. If desert-dwelling trolls confortable in 60°C heat don't mind fire but get their regeneration stopped by pouring water on them, that's fine. You probably shouldn't switch the two around, though!
I for one have nothing against using traditional trolls in a game instead of the common D&D troll.
I have done exactly this. My current campaign is set in a magical version of medieval scotland, and at one point the PCs were told there were trolls in the area. Mechanically, the trolls I used were giants, but since the PCs are vikings, giants would be something different to them, so I called them trolls. My players were a bit uneasy about the troll staying dead, but nicely didn't metagame by burning the corpses.
Its far too much effort for the reward. So the players have to make a knowledge check or trial and error their way through the monster. Then whatever benefit you've gained is lost because now they know how to fight the monster.
If the challenge of an encounter relies on the PCs being ignorant of how the monster functions, its not a good encounter.
When players encounter a demon and know to use cold iron, that doesn't bother me because it means I don't have bother reciting that knowledge when they make a check and the players feel smart for remembering how monsters work.
Knowing that you need to stake a vampire, cut off its head, and anoint it with holy water to kill it is very different from actually being able to accomplish that with whatever garbage the players actually spent their money on.
Honestly, if this is the kind of thing you want for an encounter and you're afraid your players will metagame their way through it. All you have to do is change what the creature looks like and give it a new name.
"A large lumbering creature with purple scales and glowing red eyes comes over the hill. Instead of hands it has a set of razor sharp talons at the ends of its arms. It opens a toothed maw that drips with green slime before screaming and charging at the group."
Behind the screen that thing is just a unaltered vanilla troll. But nobody is going to be immediately grabbing for acid flasks and fire unless that's their go to tactic for all monsters. They also aren't going to realize that it regenerates without actually fighting the thing or making an appropriate knowledge check.
"oh, you got a DC 15? You recognize that this is a dreaded Llort monster. It can rend with it's talons and heals quickly from wounds. You've heard that acid works well against them and that fire frightens them. "
Now, if the group keeps on running into different monster's that have regeneration that is stopped by applying acid and fire. They're probably just going to start doing that with all monsters. Encounters against the unknown can be interesting. But it has to be a "new" unknown each time or else it just becomes stale for everyone.
Alright, going to trot out this concept again: metagaming isn't bad.
Or rather, there is no way to avoid it without creating a situation as contrived and inorganic as the metagaming in the first place.
As the Angry GM says, if an encounter with a troll is no longer a challenge when the PC's know that they need fire and acid, then...design a better encounter.
A troll in a deep, roiling pool of water (do you hang back and let it regenerate, or do you wade in and risk it all?). A troll in an abandoned oil refinery (sure, cast that fireball). A room full of acid vats (you oil kill the troll with those, but then...he could kill you with them, too).
The whole "your characters wouldn't know that!" line of thought is tedious and obnoxious.
But aside from that, even when I use monsters straight out of the bestiary (roughly 1 in ten times, nowadays), reskinning is easy and fun. A minotaur with a goat head and a falchion or pole arm instead of an axe. Impish or puckish goblins, with horns,and hooves. A two-headed hill giant.
Restatting a monster without reskinning it, though...that feels more like a "gotcha!" than anything. A boar with Str27, eight levels in barbarian and laser eyes isn't fresh or fun. It's "haha, you thought it was one thing and you just took a ton of damage".
Giving goblins a bite attack, swapping out equipment or making hill giants immune to flanking--they're all small mechanical changes you could add on after you've telegraphed them with a new ascetic. But tacking on abilities without giving your players any kind of chance to notice the difference not only feels like a jerk move, but I feel like it'll throw your CR ratings way off. Easier to find a similar monster and make a few tweaks or build something from the ground up.
|
I like using classic monsters, and I frequently change them to an appropriate CR for the PCs. To me it's all about story. If boars fit the story for some reason, but the boar in the bestiary is cr2 and the party is level 12, I want them to fight 6, so I write up a cr9 boar stat block.
Substitutions like using triceratops stats for a rhinoceros because I wanted a cr8 rhino and the ones in the book are cr 4 and 6, is a great idea, but it should be done for that reason. Meaning I wanted a cr8 rhino, but there isn't one written, so I found an appropriate stat block to substitute.
Using recognizable creatures adds to the verisimilitude of the world. That doesn't mean I don't want some strange thing every once in a while, but if every creature is some bizarre new monstrosity, then bizarre becomes the norm and loses it's impact.
I like using classic monsters, and I frequently change them to an appropriate CR for the PCs. To me it's all about story. If boars fit the story for some reason, but the boar in the bestiary is cr2 and the party is level 12, I want them to fight 6, so I write up a cr9 boar stat block.
I've been writing a lot of 5e minidungeons lately (3rd party publisher), and given the comparative paucity of SRD monsters, I'm having to do this kind of trick A LOT.
Have you ever been called out about it by players? Or do they tend to just accept that a big monster hit them for ## damage?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like using classic monsters, and I frequently change them to an appropriate CR for the PCs. To me it's all about story. If boars fit the story for some reason, but the boar in the bestiary is cr2 and the party is level 12, I want them to fight 6, so I write up a cr9 boar stat block.
I mean, I take a ton of liberties with my games and stories, but doesn't that ever get misleading?
I suppose, if your players are used to it, then they just assume everything they encounter is going to have a CR around their APL?I feel like there should be some growth, some kind of bar that's raised. At a certain point, normal goblins become fodder and giants become worthy opponents, etc.
In my current game, I had three lvl5 characters run into a herd of mammoths. Like...9 adults and a few little ones. I did NOT want to make them CR-appropriate; I wanted them to have to be careful and cautious and crafty or die. I don't want every fight to be something that tests their mettle just so. But if a boar can be CR9, how do the players know what kind of an encounter it is?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've never met a kangaroo but I know it's got a pouch to carry kids. And that's something on the other side of the planet that isnt a localized unstoppable killing machine with a weakness to fire that should be pretty much talk of the town.
But it's important to note that kangaroos are vulnerable to fire.
|
|
I like using classic monsters, and I frequently change them to an appropriate CR for the PCs. To me it's all about story. If boars fit the story for some reason, but the boar in the bestiary is cr2 and the party is level 12, I want them to fight 6, so I write up a cr9 boar stat block.I mean, I take a ton of liberties with my games and stories, but doesn't that ever get misleading?
I suppose, if your players are used to it, then they just assume everything they encounter is going to have a CR around their APL?I feel like there should be some growth, some kind of bar that's raised. At a certain point, normal goblins become fodder and giants become worthy opponents, etc.
In my current game, I had three lvl5 characters run into a herd of mammoths. Like...9 adults and a few little ones. I did NOT want to make them CR-appropriate; I wanted them to have to be careful and cautious and crafty or die. I don't want every fight to be something that tests their mettle just so. But if a boar can be CR9, how do the players know what kind of an encounter it is?
How do players know what kind of encounter it is when you use humans as adversaries? A human can be cr 1/3 to 20+, yet an animal's cr should be set in stone? A normal ghoul is cr1, but the monster codex has ghouls up to level 12 in it, is that also misleading?
It is an inherent problem in a level based system. Levels aren't something that is visible. There are things you can do to help communicate that information to the players, but I also think that uncertainty isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also, if players get cocky and overconfident and get themselves hurt, that's on them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To some extent what you're calling metagaming is knowledge of the game world and it should be encouraged IMO. If an invasion of trolls leads to planning involving fire that's good, if the PCs home might as well be being invaded by Steves for all the name tells the players that's probably bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do players know what kind of encounter it is when you use humans as adversaries? A human can be cr 1/3 to 20+, yet an animal's cr should be set in stone? A normal ghoul is cr1, but the monster codex has ghouls up to level 12 in it, is that also misleading?
It is an inherent problem in a level based system. Levels aren't something that is visible. There are things you can do to help communicate that information to the players, but I also think that uncertainty isn't necessarily a bad thing. Also, if players get cocky and overconfident and get themselves hurt, that's on them.
Humanoids posture and brag, there's body language and scars and equipment and that subtle confidence that comes from being awesome. --that's how I'd translate levels into something quantifiable (since levels are themselves an abstraction).
The ghouls...I mean, if I presented a small horde of ghouls to my players and one of them, indistinguishable from the rest, started busting out lvl6 spells...yeah, I'd say that's probably misleading.
Now, if there was a ghoul lord, wearing a crown of dark glass and a robe of human skin, commanding a small horde of its lesser kin? No, not at all.
So if those CR9 boars were larger, more evil-tempered, with the scars from a hundred fights, maybe with evidence of magical influence or outfitted in some way, etc. etc., then that's exactly the sort of thing I do. I don't want to trick my players, but if they ignore hints and end up the worse for it, that's on them.
In my case, a check to know anything about a kangaroo would be no less than 20 and I would learn that it has a whopping great hole (not a pouch) in its stomach out of which its young pop forth fully formed with no blood or afterbirth or anything. And it would probably eat by directly putting food into it.
Welp, this is homebrew canon, now.
Isn't the changing of common monsters in and of itself metagaming? Just from your end, not theirs?
I have combined Gorgons with Minotaurs to make Gorgotaurs... combined a Black Dragon with a Jabberwock... a two-headed Tarn Linnorm with a Forked Tongue Wyvern... but never to trick the party. It was always because I wanted to make a unique monster.
I think that if players start metagaming to a degree in which offends you as a GM it's acceptable to modify a base monster and make a new sub-type or variant.
Normal trolls a susceptible to acid and fire.
The trolls of fire island aren't. The susceptible to cold and water. They're scared to get near water and don't ever leave this island because of it. The water doesn't harm them, but it does turn off their regeneration by extinguishing the flame that burns atop their head, which is connected to their regeneration.
This tribe is connected to and worships a evil phoenix and believe their healing fire comes from the phoenix for reasons they don't entirely understand. They bring sacrifices to the phoenix frequently.
...those more powerful boars had better be dire, god/fey touched, or at least "retired" former animal companions.
Or your players understand that the things they encounter in the world will always be a more or less appropriate challenge for them, whatever level they're at.
Right?
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but you are level 18, you see? And I, frankly, don't have it in me to throw hundreds of normal boars at you... so I made a few level appropriate boars for you, hope you don't mind. Oh, here's how many HD each one has, and that was good Knowledge check, well done. Roll Initiative...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...you are level 18...so I made a few level appropriate boars for you, hope you don't mind...
My only question, at that point, is why it needs to be boars. Lvl18...that's a major power in the world, right? So why are they dealing with wild pigs?
There's also the concern of growth; if you're still facing the same foes, have you really grown at all?| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will agree that a couple of CR 18 pigs just hanging around being pigs with a bunch of CR 2 pigs doing nothing more than normal pigs do seems odd.
Clearly they are retired adventurers from a Trufflefinder campaign, who decided to settle down in the old home forest after they defeated the dreaded Baconmaker. Hence the noserings of +5 armour and the fact they are all using open trotter style.
Boosting a low level creature to high level is yet another tool of encounter design. As long as high level PCs get to fight a lot of obvious high level creatures, it improves the variety to add a few boosted creatures to the mix.
For example the mimic is an iconic monster with a lot of potential. I upgraded two of them to CR 17, with according Stealth value, a nauseating tongue, enormous reach and serious acid damage. They managed to surprise the players and forced them to adapt quickly - but once the acid resistance was up and the PCs closed, it was over pretty quickly. Worked as intended, one of the best encounters lately. Stats for those who are curious:
N Medium aberration (shapechanger)
I12 d60 p35
p50 to notice
AC 32 18 24
HP 380
CMD 40
Save 20 15 20
Move: 20 ft
Standard: 30ft Tongue +20 1d8+10 & 10d8 acid & nauseate 1r [F24]
Values are a mix from Bestiary table 1-1 and gut feeling.
I like Improved Mimic. Fun.
As for level 18 characters fighting CR18 boars... who else is going to fight them? The unfortunate hunter whose hubris demands she take the bounty posted on the bulletin board? The city guardsmen? It's literally suicide to send a lowly city guard to fight such beasts, no captain worth their salt would waste trained personnel so flippantly. The kingdom military? And we are back to the level 18 characters... it all makes sense now.
Why do CR18 boars exist in the first place? Easy. Because the party is level 18... everything is pretty much CR18 at this point.
I know, sometimes it's good to give them an easy encounter and let them feel powerful... or whatever.
You should see them cut through CR18 encounters... I don't even bat an eye throwing CR23 encounters at them. They hardly notice any difference... it survived? Let me fix that real quick, says the ZAM/Inquisitor, I didn't think I would have to shoot again... does 277 damage kill it this time?
Plus, I like building enemies to throw at them, so taking the time to up some boars is time well spent... even if they just get butchered in a matter of seconds, every freaking time.
If your PCs are beginning to question why everything doesn't stay weak and puny as they get more powerful, they might have taken ranks in knowledge (metagaming). It's a game, things get harder as you progress, by design. There's only a cap on the difficulty of certain types of enemies if the GM puts one there.
There are plenty of ways to make encounters with normally-weak foes engaging and challenging for high level players, and there's nothing wrong in my opinion with scaling up a creature to match the PCs' level. A super-duper-boar with a bajillion hp is not particularly interesting, but then again, neither is a normal boar- they're both going to charge and then gore you to death. The setting, tone, stakes, environment of an encounter... those are what make them memorable. Any monster can fit, you just have to run it right.
They don't even have to kill $#!+ at this level... last session, one of them tamed TWO Gargantuan Flying Owlbears with Animal Husbandry or whatever.
Didn't even roll Initiative... just talked to them and had all the skills to back it up. Now they have these big, dumb beasts as mutual acquaintances? Indifferent, yet curious, companions? I don't know... the party even gave them each names. Archi, and Medes... named after the owl in Sword in the Stone.
Flying Owlbears... party doesn't even roll Initiative anymore...
I wont disagree that for some of these it's pretty common knowledge. Let people roll DC 10 untrained.
I've never met a kangaroo but I know it's got a pouch to carry kids. And that's something on the other side of the planet that isnt a localized unstoppable killing machine with a weakness to fire that should be pretty much talk of the town.
You also have access to the modern education system and the internet, which means the normal person’s ‘common knowledge’ base is vastly more expansive than it would be for those people.
If your PCs are beginning to question why everything doesn't stay weak and puny as they get more powerful, they might have taken ranks in knowledge (metagaming). It's a game, things get harder as you progress, by design. There's only a cap on the difficulty of certain types of enemies if the GM puts one there.
I always liked Chris Perkins on this point. His "The Dungeon Master Experience" articles back in 4e got me started as a GM, a the very first one is titled "Surprise! Epic Goblins!"
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/DM_Experience_2011.pdf
I thought it was a nice way to approach the "old foes can still be scary" concept.
If you take a monster, say a troll, and upgrade it to CR 15. You've made it Huge sized, given it unique energy vulnerabilities to retard its Regeneration ability, and handed it an ability to Rage and deal Sonic damage or a Fear effect with a roar.
Did it just appear out of nothing, as the PCs hit level 15? If not, how do you work this into an ongoing campaign. I suppose this is probably easier with a home game instead of an AP or pre-written material, but please discuss.
For homebrew games I tend to have sort of CR zoning when it comes to the random encounter tables. Sure, a group of CR 3 bandits that attack you on the road might not be much of an encounter when you're 10th level but that's what's in the area right around the capital. That isn't going to change unless some major event happens where it makes sense to find more dangerous creatures in the area.
The further away from civilization you get the more "wild" the territory becomes and more dangerous creatures lurk in these dark places. You encountered the CR 15 troll? well yeah things are bad out here. This is why no one but the really brave and/or stupid ventures out this far.
For AP's I'm not in the habit of making custom monsters. I might tweek something that has already been placed there and the AP usually explains why the thing is where it is so it's not going to feel out of place unless that's the point of the encounter. If I'm running an AP its because I don't want to put in the time and energy required run a quality homebrew game.
I guess in most games I've run and played in, 15th level characters just aren't running around in the same physical locations that 2nd level characters are. They have more important places to be and things to do. In many homebrew games I've played in, planar adventures become a regular thing at mid to high levels. I think because it gives the DM a relatively blank canvas to work with that doesn't have to depend on what was previously established. High CR monsters can just simply be the norm.
Yeah, it's been decades since I got a campaign up to level 15, but the current homebrew I have on level 10...
Since about level 7 the PCs really haven't "adventured" around where Joe-schmoe type encounters were known to reside. I have a ripoff of the PF Society built into my homebrew and this organization was the impetus for the campaign's beginnings.
As the characters got to level 7 and I gave them Leadership as a free feat, they all chose low-level NPCs I'd intro'd from the guild as Cohorts. As such, most of the "local crime" they leave up to the guild and specifically those Cohorts.
Heh, I tried to do an intrigue type campaign where I gave the players options and they were much more interested in rumors that took them away from the city than the things that were happening in town. To the point that they were out on expedition more often than not. I tried giving them the free leadership thing and for the most part I was told "eh, I don't want to keep track of more than just my character". So, I ended up just giving them generic points of contact for them to report back to.
Different groups, different interests I suppose.
Also... how many "random encounters" are you throwing out there at upper levels? I suppose this has more to do with your players honestly, but in all 3 of my campaigns the players are fairly experienced. Even though I've presented three different sandboxes none of these players go wandering around blindly, seeking adventure.
It depends on how "dangerous" I want to make the journey feel. When traveling it could be 3 rolls per day and 3 per night to see if anything happens (each at a 33% to 50% something happens) or it could be as little as 3 rolls per week to see what they encounter. I don't tend to use random encounter tables except when players are moving from point A to point B. Once they get to an area I'll have set pieces that either get triggered or not based on the character's actions. Sandbox games can be tricky, I've found I don't like running games that are full on sandboxes. If a player's character wants to accomplish something in game I'll try to find a way to tie it in to the ongoing adventure.
The most successful/fun character I've had as a player in a sandbox game was a villain. That is I approached the character (in terms of personality, motivation, etc.) the same way I would approach the major villain of a homebrew campaign.
What terrible thing do they want to do?
What steps do they need to take to do it?
It worked great in the sandbox game because there was always something specific that my character wanted to do. The other characters had input as well but a large part of that campaign was the group of do-gooders helping my evil character accomplish evil. :)
I'm actually trying the same thing again in my current 5e game. Its been interesting so far, but MAN is 5e stingy on gold. It's making greed my character's primary motivator because he flat out can't even afford the basic stepping stone projects he wants to complete.
...Step two
I mean, on one hand, it's great you have players that are so interested in and attentive of your world. On the other, I find it extremely hard to believe that every single character each one of them makes for every single game they play in is this methodical, patient, by-the-books, world-weary campaigner. Approaching every situation with every character exactly the same sounds like they think they've struck upon The Best way to do things, rather than the way any of their characters would actually do it. Playing the rules and not the game, etc.
And ttrpg players who hate surprises utterly baffle me. What about discovery? What about mystery and wonder?
It sounds like a power trip that they want zero deviation from.
What happens when you put a time limit on them?
In my current game, the players decided to tighten their belts and pass up an opportunity to resupply their rations, despite rolls to resist starvation and still many long leagues to go all because they felt like they didn't have the time to spare half a day hunting and gathering.
My table handles things a little differently...
Step One:
Get on the Carpet of Flying. They even have a portable hole filled with Alchemist Fire and Acid flasks that they will dump on stuff... they call it CARPET-bombing.
Step Two (in voice of Tex, from RvB):
Go to Red Base. Kill everyone. Get the flag back.
I mean, yes, they do make Knowledge checks... but I don't think they even listen to what I say in response.
Intessa: I got a 38 on Knowledge Whatever...
Me: Okay, it has XXX hit dice and is a...
Intessa: Does a 52 confirm a critical? Does 303 damage kill it? Should I spend a Ki point to add another arrow?
My table handles things a little differently...Does a 52 confirm a critical? Does 303 damage kill it?
There's exactly why I throw out the typical experience formulas. I'm all about intelligent decisions and character strengths making things easier, but if nothing ever poses a challenge, I don't see how a character is supposed to gain xp at any meaningful rate.
If my players aren't scared for their character's survival at least some of the time, I want to dial up the difficulty until they do.
If you take a monster, say a troll, and upgrade it to CR 15. You've made it Huge sized, given it unique energy vulnerabilities to retard its Regeneration ability, and handed it an ability to Rage and deal Sonic damage or a Fear effect with a roar.
Did it just appear out of nothing, as the PCs hit level 15? If not, how do you work this into an ongoing campaign.
There is actually an official CR 15 troll variant: The jotund troll from Bestiary 3. Since it's huge and has nine heads, it's easy for the players to understand it's more dangerous than the average troll.
Where does it suddenly come from? Well, the Bestiary is not really helpful here. Appearantly it's simply supposed to exist. At least the Organization info helps to weave it into the campaign: A jotund troll associates with hill giants and ogres.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This:
For my players, so long as they're not completely taken by surprise, reskinned monsters are just a different configuration of numbers and abilities they need to defeat, nothing more. For me, it's a chance to be creative and step outside the bestiaries.
Yes, it's delightful to have players that are into the setting. I just wish, in a game with magic, dragons and gods they wouldn't be as invested in absolutes. I wish I could just riff monsters or details off the cuff and not have EVERYTHING be cannon.
Absolutely. I feel like the existing "creature type" categorization system absolutely kills the sense of wonder I'm trying to cultivate.
Is that one of the fae? A daemon? A ghost? Is there even a difference between those things? I want to leave most of those questions unanswered. I mean, if you look into it, you'll find something. But what you'll find is more questions, not the means to sort the whole world into neat little boxes....reskinned monsters are just a different configuration of numbers and abilities they need to defeat, nothing more...
That seems like the opposite end of the problem. Jeeze. Sounds like a pearls before swine type of situation.
To some extent what you're calling metagaming is knowledge of the game world and it should be encouraged IMO. If an invasion of trolls leads to planning involving fire that's good, if the PCs home might as well be being invaded by Steves for all the name tells the players that's probably bad.
To be fair though, no one had ever survived an invasion of Steves due to their mastery of Stevomancy, so claiming to know anything about them would invariably be metagaming...