The Monsters: What is repetitive? Wonky? Missing?

[derv]

Reading your thoughts here, I have to admit that I immediately thought of the traditions associated with Elves. They could easily be categorized as a number of types. A person could spend some time looking into their origins in folklore and literature, getting lost in the history that characterized them as one thing or another.

Wikipedia gives a thoughtful quote at the start of the page for the (mythological) Elf:

"the time has come to resist reviewing information about álfar en masse and trying to impose generalizations on a tradition of a thousand years. Legends of álfar may have been constantly changing and were perhaps always heterogeneous so it might be argued that any particular source will only reflect the state of affairs at one given time."

I think this may be true of a number of myths. Such a bestiary could quickly become complicated (muddied) and encyclopedic. Or else it might fall back on broad generalizations. In which case, what is the point? Aren't we really more interested in knowing the differences- what sets them apart? Do we really want our kobolds, boggarts, and goblins to be one and the same?

It seems such a study and classification could be done. I'm not saying it couldn't. I just think it would be easier to define the setting, then categorize the things that live there. Is the setting influenced by Germanic, Turkic, Hellenistic, etc. traditions? Then, I would look at sources for those traditions as inspiration on it's inhabitants.

That's basically how I would approach it.

[tetramorph]

derv, I think what it comes down to is that I am a Platonist.

I not only believe that the discernment of archetypes and patterns is possible, I think it is a really good idea and one of the only gateways into real knowledge.

I also find archetypical descriptions and discussions empowering rather than muddling. And I like the encyclopedic. I find hours of enjoyment paging through compendia and imagining. An archetype / pattern approach is just another way to organize knowledge, and one particularly suited to the way I interact with the world.

Like the writing of good rules for a board game (or, really, any game): tell us the goal, get the basic archetype of play laid out, then give details and examples for those who are interested. What is the "goal" of this monster, its telos, what part of the human psyche is being expressed, projected, shadowed. How do stories about this monster get played out. Then detail key cultures and mythologies where this type has clearly showed up, giving examples of variations within the theme.

Man, I would love a book like that.

[derv]

I did not intend to suggest that archetypes could not be useful. What I was trying to convey is that it seems they have limits of usefulness. Unless, perhaps, it is your intention to define the essence of things fantasy? This would be a rather difficult task when approaching many mythical creatures found in medieval bestiaries, where the authors have obviously pulled the descriptions out of their hats, the listing having no long standing written or oral traditions prior to the period. An anomaly?

In my opinion, the usefulness of archetypes is in the function of differentiating, rather than as a means of cataloging. It seems that a template is eminently more practical for that purpose.

But, don't let me dissuade you from doing what you enjoy. I agree that some of the commonality between different cultures is intriguing.

[Zulgyan]

I have added Giant Snails as level 1 dungeon critters. The bane of clerics, since bludgeoning weapons only deal 1/2 damage to them!

Check this out: www.google.com/amp/s/justhistoryposts.com/2017/11/13/medieval-marginalia-why-are-there-so-many-snails-in-medieval-manuscripts/amp/

[Punkrabbitt]

Sept 27, 2016 22:16:09 GMT -6 @gronanofsimmerya said:

So stat them up yourselves.

^ this is an elegant, simple solution to it all. And the ease with which this can be done in 0E is what makes it so much better than later editions.

[aldarron]

Regarding the "missing" part of the OP headline, if you are stocking a dungeon by HD=DL you will run into some difficulties on some levels due to the derth of dungeon type monsters in certain HD ranges. For example, there is not a lot of dungeon suitable type monsters of 3 and 4 HD. Same is true of deeper levels like 9.

[tetramorph]

Aug 11, 2019 6:03:25 GMT -6 aldarron said:

Regarding the "missing" part of the OP headline, if you are stocking a dungeon by HD=DL you will run into some difficulties on some levels due to the derth of dungeon type monsters in certain HD ranges. For example, there is not a lot of dungeon suitable type monsters of 3 and 4 HD. Same is true of deeper levels like 9.

Agreed.

For 3&4 I've been thinking of sleestaks, skeksis, gelfling/elfling types.

For 9 I've been thinking of the windego.

[delta]

In my "equated hit dice" assessment, I get quite a few dungeon monsters at the 3-4 EHD level. Specifically: 17, although 7 come from Sup-I which maybe aren't counted here.

[aldarron]

Aug 12, 2019 16:02:31 GMT -6 delta said:

In my "equated hit dice" assessment, I get quite a few dungeon monsters at the 3-4 EHD level. Specifically: 17, although 7 come from Sup-I which maybe aren't counted here.

Well I wasn't thinking of supplement 1, and like you I'm not sure if the OP meant to include them or not. ( I don't use much out of Supp1), but even so I count less than 10.

"Level" 3 dungeon monsters
HD 3 - Wight, Grey Ooze

"level" 4 dungeon monsters
HD3+ Ghoul
HD 4 - Medusae, Wraith

<shrug> I might have missed something and there are a couple others that can and do make the occasional dungeon appearance, like gargoyles, but they don't really belong underground.