|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on May 11, 2021 23:05:32 GMT -6
It occurs to me that the limited descriptions given in OD&D allow for, and in some cases even imply, something different than later editions' descriptions.
Kobolds could be re-interpreted as something closer to their mythic origin: wicked, even maybe semi-devilish, fays of the earth that plague miners (and, in D&D, dungeon delvers!) - rather than dog-people or tiny dragon-people.
AD&D's giant ants are 2' long. But the fact that OD&D lists them under "Large Insects or Animals" - when wolves are given as an example of "Small" - suggests (to me anyway) a much larger creature.
So perhaps they're more like the horse-sized ants in Burroughs' Pellucidar book Land of Terror.
Giant Ant: MV 12", AC 6, MV 9", HD 5
(Vol III lists them as a 3rd level monster in dungeons. I tried to make them appropriate to that threat-level)
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on May 11, 2021 23:34:54 GMT -6
Yes, OD&D's cursory treatment of giant animals allows for them to be any size you want: 1 HD, 10 HD, 40 HD, etc. The 1955 movie, Tarantula!, has a spider with at least 40 HD.  |
|
yesmar
Level 4 Theurgist
Fool, my spell book is written in Erlang!
Posts: 197
|
Post by yesmar on May 11, 2021 23:54:22 GMT -6
I don’t use psionics in my games (generally), but for me giant ants are always psionic. Phase IV mind blast!
|
|
bobjester0e
Level 4 Theurgist
DDO, DCC, or more Lost City map work? Oh, the hardship of making adult decisions! ;)
Posts: 182 
|
Post by bobjester0e on May 12, 2021 3:37:26 GMT -6
Gary is on record somewhere saying that depiction of kobolds in the Monster Manual got by him, and he never intended for them to be either dog-like or scaly, but the traditional evil fey dwarves or gnomes.
What then, would the 0e version of the gnoll (gnome + troll) or "gnole" be like?
NOT a tall, hyena-like humanoid!
|
|
|
|
Post by Zenopus on May 12, 2021 5:43:04 GMT -6
Kobolds could be re-interpreted as something closer to their mythic origin: wicked, even maybe semi-devilish, fays of the earth that plague miners (and, in D&D, dungeon delvers!) - rather than dog-people or tiny dragon-people. Holmes did just that for Basic, describing them as "evil dwarf-like creatures". This was prior to the illustrations in the Monster Manual, so he had nothing to go on other than mythology since neither Chainmail or OD&D Vol 2 provides any description of them, other than treating them as less powerful goblins. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on May 12, 2021 6:33:15 GMT -6
In Swords & Wizardry (Original and Complete, cannot recall if it's in WB), Matt Finch takes a bit of time to say that having minimal descriptions is the way to go, and a positive holdover from OD&D. I agree.
I think Ken St. Andre did it one better in T&T 1E- Just a big long paragraph of monster names for inspiration. Coming back as an Adult to T&T, I did not know a few of the monsters in his list- they were examples from literature I was not familiar with. I looked them up. Then I chastised myself for doing so- because the mental picture I had of them was WAY better than the descriptions I found.
"why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" OD&D- Afterward-Volume III-Pg. 36
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on May 12, 2021 14:33:22 GMT -6
In Swords & Wizardry (Original and Complete, cannot recall if it's in WB), Matt Finch takes a bit of time to say that having minimal descriptions is the way to go, and a positive holdover from OD&D. I agree. I think Ken St. Andre did it one better in T&T 1E- Just a big long paragraph of monster names for inspiration. Coming back as an Adult to T&T, I did not know a few of the monsters in his list- they were examples from literature I was not familiar with. I looked them up. Then I chastised myself for doing so- because the mental picture I had of them was WAY better than the descriptions I found. "why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" OD&D- Afterward-Volume III-Pg. 36 Alright...that is pretty minimal, maybe a bit too much. My first exposure to the DMG I obsessed over the monster lists in the back. I had not seen the Monster Manual yet and so my mind really wandered! My mental images of things like Lurker Above and Mimic were wildly different than their interpretations in the MM. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on May 12, 2021 18:41:13 GMT -6
In Swords & Wizardry (Original and Complete, cannot recall if it's in WB), Matt Finch takes a bit of time to say that having minimal descriptions is the way to go, and a positive holdover from OD&D. I agree. I think Ken St. Andre did it one better in T&T 1E- Just a big long paragraph of monster names for inspiration. Coming back as an Adult to T&T, I did not know a few of the monsters in his list- they were examples from literature I was not familiar with. I looked them up. Then I chastised myself for doing so- because the mental picture I had of them was WAY better than the descriptions I found. "why have us do any more of your imagining for you?" OD&D- Afterward-Volume III-Pg. 36 My mental images of things like Lurker Above and Mimic were wildly different than their interpretations in the MM. And it was a bad thing? I know you are an artist, so I'm guessing maybe your brain is geared towards preferring visuals? (maybe? maybe not? IDK), but I do like a lack of art and minimal description*. More often than not I'm disappointed by art in RPG books rather than inspired. I don't like minis or other visual representations when playing RPGs, either. I nearly always prefer my own brain's work over someone else's. EDIT* There are exceptions- I really love 13th Age's monster books- The core book has just small symbols for each creature, and minimal description. The Bestiary books offer a Type of monster and several variations/suggestions- usually drawn from different D&D edition/setting interpretations, or different real world descriptions, or something completely gonzo like you'd see in Arduin. There is nothing official save what the DM desires. I also like books like the Van Richten's Guides, Creatures of Barsaive, and the SAGA Bestiary for Dragonlance, where the books are fictional journals/journal entries. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on May 12, 2021 18:51:21 GMT -6
And here is Ken's list
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on May 12, 2021 19:15:42 GMT -6
My mental images of things like Lurker Above and Mimic were wildly different than their interpretations in the MM. And it was a bad thing? I know you are an artist, so I'm guessing maybe your brain is geared towards preferring visuals? (maybe? maybe not? IDK), but I do like a lack of art and minimal description*. More often than not I'm disappointed by art in RPG books rather than inspired. I don't like minis or other visual representations when playing RPGs, either. I nearly always prefer my own brain's work over someone else's. EDIT* There are exceptions- I really love 13th Age's monster books- The core book has just small symbols for each creature, and minimal description. The Bestiary books offer a Type of monster and several variations- usually drawn from different D&D edition/setting interpretations, or different real world descriptions, or something completely gonzo. I also like books like the Van Richten's Guides, Creatures of Barsaive, and the SAGA Bestiary for Dragonlance, where the books are fictional journals/journal entries. Art is cool. Just because an artist drew it a certain way, or a writer described it a certain way, doesn't mean it has to be like that in your fantasy world. But if I'm going to buy an RPG book I'd like more than a list of creatures I could just find in a dictionary. Also, I can like both things at the same time: a list of vaguely described creatures, and a well illustrated manual of monsters. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on May 12, 2021 19:28:47 GMT -6
And it was a bad thing? I know you are an artist, so I'm guessing maybe your brain is geared towards preferring visuals? (maybe? maybe not? IDK), but I do like a lack of art and minimal description*. More often than not I'm disappointed by art in RPG books rather than inspired. I don't like minis or other visual representations when playing RPGs, either. I nearly always prefer my own brain's work over someone else's. EDIT* There are exceptions- I really love 13th Age's monster books- The core book has just small symbols for each creature, and minimal description. The Bestiary books offer a Type of monster and several variations- usually drawn from different D&D edition/setting interpretations, or different real world descriptions, or something completely gonzo. I also like books like the Van Richten's Guides, Creatures of Barsaive, and the SAGA Bestiary for Dragonlance, where the books are fictional journals/journal entries. Art is cool. Just because an artist drew it a certain way, or a writer described it a certain way, doesn't mean it has to be like that in your fantasy world. . Sure, Art is cool, some of it anyway. I'm generally unable to un-see something in my mind's eye. So whether I like it or not, I tend to associate the first picture I see of something- say a Kobold- as what all Kobolds look like, and it sticks with me for life. So it may be easy for some to just say " it's different", but for my brain, that does not work. |
|
|
|
Post by talysman on May 12, 2021 20:04:22 GMT -6
AD&D's giant ants are 2' long. But the fact that OD&D lists them under "Large Insects or Animals" - when wolves are given as an example of "Small" - suggests (to me anyway) a much larger creature.
So perhaps they're more like the horse-sized ants in Burroughs' Pellucidar book Land of Terror.
Before AD&D, I thought of them as... well, Them. Although I suppose they're really supposed to be horse or tiger size. I think Ken St. Andre did it one better in T&T 1E- Just a big long paragraph of monster names for inspiration. Coming back as an Adult to T&T, I did not know a few of the monsters in his list- they were examples from literature I was not familiar with. I looked them up. Then I chastised myself for doing so- because the mental picture I had of them was WAY better than the descriptions I found. When I first started playing OD&D, all we had were mimeograph copies of tables, including the monster table from M&T. I got some things wrong -- I think I mentioned before having a really weird interpretation of what a "staff elemental" would be -- but it's not a completely bad way to go. I kind of think one- and two-liner monster descriptions is too little for some monsters, but not a bad idea at all for canon fodder and things like animals. You might get away with it if you use a standardized way to resolve one/two-word ability descriptions. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on May 12, 2021 20:38:36 GMT -6
I'm generally unable to un-see something in my mind's eye. I get that. I used to read LotR once every year or so, but I've only read Lord of the Rings once since Peter Jackson's version came out, and then it was all PJ's version in my head. I mean it's a pretty great version, but before then it was more fairy tale like in my mind, like Arthur Rackham illustrations - and a bit of the Rankin-Bass Hobbit cartoon. |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on May 12, 2021 21:01:29 GMT -6
Gary is on record somewhere saying that depiction of kobolds in the Monster Manual got by him, and he never intended for them to be either dog-like or scaly, but the traditional evil fey dwarves or gnomes. What then, would the 0e version of the gnoll (gnome + troll) or "gnole" be like? NOT a tall, hyena-like humanoid! IMO:
These creatures are best known for their huge, glowing eyes, for they shun bright light, being found underground and in the darkest forests.
Those few who have seen them clearly and returned to tell the story describe them as covered in dark green or gray fur, gaunt, with inhumanly long arms ending in talons as deadly as any sword.
Rumors suggest that there are two types, different in behavior but not physically distinct.
One type (in which the Gnomish strain is predominant) builds structures, sets traps, and uses weapons with skill; these speak a language of their own as well as Common and the Chaotic tongue.
The second type (more strongly Trollish) is said not to use tools, being consumed by wild ferocity, attacking with claw and fang. Perhaps they have language, but do not speak to prey.
Both types savor humans and demi-humans as food; the difference is primarily that the first type will parley with those who show obvious strength. Weak parties are still prey.
|
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on May 12, 2021 23:11:54 GMT -6
Yes, they know who they are. Monsters do. To be selected for an encounter remains definitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on May 13, 2021 5:40:53 GMT -6
I'm generally unable to un-see something in my mind's eye. I get that. I used to read LotR once every year or so, but I've only read Lord of the Rings once since Peter Jackson's version came out, and it was all that version in my head. I mean it's a pretty great version, but it was more fairy tale like in my mind before then, like Arthur Rackham illustrations - and a bit of the Rankin-Bass Hobbit cartoon. Perfect example. As much as I like PJ's version, now it's hard for me to unsee all that when thinking about LoTR or perusing my Middle Earth Books |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on May 13, 2021 20:57:53 GMT -6
Holmes did just that for Basic, describing them as "evil dwarf-like creatures". That's neat. I didn't know that - I don't have Holmes Basic and it's one of the few old D&D products not for sale as a PDF.
(Do you know why? Is there some odd rights issue?)
|
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on May 13, 2021 23:29:33 GMT -6
I quite enjoy only having a name to work with, as long as it's a describing name like Tentacled Horror, that's something to work with. If you don't know what an orc is, you won't find out from the name and it could be anything, even a giant bird (orc - roc?)
We use this in our Dungeon World games a lot. The DM always asks everyone for one name of a monster which is known to the PC by name only, something they've heard of but never seen. It's his inspiration for new creatures, and the more terrifying the name the better. For example, I remember a game session when I, for lack of sudden inspiration, said the name "Heulpilz" (Wailing Fungus; I remembered it from some Futurama joke). I remember the confused looks on everyone's faces, as no one could immediately make something from the name. Someone mentioned it'd probably be a fungus which could emulate the sound of sobbing and crying ("heulen" in German) and it stuck as a description in our minds. Later in the game in a cave we hard a sound like wailing wind and no one expected this to be connected to the Heulpilz, but our DM figured that "heulen" can be something the wind does, too. So our characters walked right into the cave and into the Heulpilz field.
Something I tell new players in our Dungeon World games: If you're lost for inspiration, take two monster/animal names and patch them together. Or any adjective or verb and an animal. That's how we got monsters like the Skeleton Worm, the Cooking Mouse, the Giant Rat Ant and, when we had our pal from England in one of the games, he introduced the Troll Tits (the bird) or Trollmeise for us Germans.
|
|
|
|
Post by retrorob on May 15, 2021 4:26:10 GMT -6
cometaryorbitcheck the Driver Ants from Moldvay's Basic (B34): HD 4, AC 3, Dam. 2-12. They are 6' long. Holmes also provides the giant ants: HD 2, AC 3, dam. 1-6. Suit yourself  Wolves are good example of so-called inflation. Normal wolves are only 1 HD in OD&D, while the giant/dire wolves (wargs) have perhaps 2 HD. I wrote a post on my blog about wolves in D&D, it's in Polish only, but one can run it through Google translate: roberdponury.blogspot.com/2020/04/nie-wywouj-wilka-z-lasu.htmlAs for the gnolls, I've read the story by Dunsany and there is no description of them... but numbers of 20-200 suggests they are humanoid, some kind of hobgoblins maybe, just like kobolds are minor goblins. I made them literally wolfheads, just like ones in the old Polish movie: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QzTYRPlW0k&ab_channel=ZosiaSamosia
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on May 15, 2021 6:48:39 GMT -6
My gnolls are beast men, possessing various animals characteristics that vary by tribe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2021 7:16:41 GMT -6
I've got a lot of the gold box and infinity engine tropes deeply stamped into my brain from the time I was getting into RPGs so my kobolds and gnolls are not OD&D-kosher, but they're a type of identifiable Kobold and Gnoll that gamers in general would recognize, and I'm better and more comfortable running them that way, since it's the way my brain classifies those terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by dicebro on May 15, 2021 18:55:05 GMT -6
My gnolls are beast men, possessing various animals characteristics that vary by tribe. Mine are half gnome, half troll. Human-sized, bearded, nasty with a pointy black hat. |
|
|
|
Post by Porphyre on May 16, 2021 6:21:10 GMT -6
If you don't know what an orc is, you won't find out from the name and it could be anything, even a giant bird (orc - roc?) One of my first contacts with Fantasy was Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rings. I was 11, maybe 12 and I know nothing of Tolkien: my only exposure with Fantasy at this time was the classics: Greek mythology and the Arthurian cycle. I had heard of the LotR, but knew it only by name and knew nothing about it. It was a projection at the local video club. Let's say I found it very confusing. Apart from the rotoscoping and the poor expositionary dialogs; I could understand why the characters were weary about killer-whales attacking then were inland : in french, the word "orque" means "orca" and sounds exactly like "orc" ! On the "plus" side, the movie left me so utterly baffled (not to mention how frustrated I was about the lack of ending ) that the very next week, I rushed to the library to borrow the books, starting my undying love story with Fantasy and later D&D ! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2021 7:35:20 GMT -6
Isn't it fascinating how now, in 2021, more kids probably recognize "Orc" than, say, "Pegasus" upon reading the word. It's a total cultural shift since the seventies. (Maybe Pegasus isn't the best example due to the recent remake of the Clash of the Titan and its sequel, but you get what I mean.)
|
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on May 16, 2021 9:12:44 GMT -6
Isn't it fascinating how now, in 2021, more kids probably recognize "Orc" than, say, "Pegasus" upon reading the word. It's a total cultural shift since the seventies. (Maybe Pegasus isn't the best example due to the recent remake of the Clash of the Titan and its sequel, but you get what I mean.) It's the same outside the US, too. I live in a supposedly "extremely conservatively Christian" country, and 50% of my high school students last year didn't know the story of David and Goliath. Even as a non-believer, I was floored. |
|
|
|
Post by cometaryorbit on May 16, 2021 14:41:54 GMT -6
Isn't it fascinating how now, in 2021, more kids probably recognize "Orc" than, say, "Pegasus" upon reading the word. It's a total cultural shift since the seventies. (Maybe Pegasus isn't the best example due to the recent remake of the Clash of the Titan and its sequel, but you get what I mean.) It is. In a sense things like LOTR and Star Wars and superheroes form a sort of modern equivalent of e.g. the "Matter of France" or Arthurian-legend cycles, or the Epic Cycle of Greek poetry, or whatever.
(One thing I find somewhat troubling, though, is that unlike historical legend cycles these are not freely adapted, due to intellectual property issues. It makes sense for movies, given the high cost of making them, but outside that medium...)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2021 14:47:23 GMT -6
Isn't it fascinating how now, in 2021, more kids probably recognize "Orc" than, say, "Pegasus" upon reading the word. It's a total cultural shift since the seventies. (Maybe Pegasus isn't the best example due to the recent remake of the Clash of the Titan and its sequel, but you get what I mean.) It is. In a sense things like LOTR and Star Wars and superheroes form a sort of modern equivalent of e.g. the "Matter of France" or Arthurian-legend cycles, or the Epic Cycle of Greek poetry, or whatever.
(One thing I find somewhat troubling, though, is that unlike historical legend cycles these are not freely adapted, due to intellectual property issues. It makes sense for movies, given the high cost of making them, but outside that medium...)
I'd never sell short or overlook the value of kids playing make believe in their back yards. My siblings and school mates developed many of our own unique timelines for Terminator, Predator, Aliens and Star Wars in these playground adventures. |
|
|
|
Post by hamurai on May 20, 2021 22:15:42 GMT -6
Isn't it fascinating how now, in 2021, more kids probably recognize "Orc" than, say, "Pegasus" upon reading the word. It's a total cultural shift since the seventies. (Maybe Pegasus isn't the best example due to the recent remake of the Clash of the Titan and its sequel, but you get what I mean.) But would they recognize the orc if they saw a picture of a pig-nosed orc?  Something I didn't think of when I first replied, but which might be an idea for some of your games: To keep monsters from being the same old boring types we've encountered hundreds of times before, I tend to also include monster books from other games. Some OSR games have been really creative, for example. I've also used Hackmaster's Hacklopedia of Beasts, as well as monsters from Metamorphosis Alpha, The Dark Eye, Dungeonslayers, Iron Kingdoms and Earthdawn. Several monsters overlap with D&D by name at least, but they often have another take on the creatures' habits, strengths and weaknesses, or they even re-invent them entirely. Numenera is also a great (and weird!) resource for monster inspiration, especially if you include sci-fi elements in your game. |
|
