Variable Monsters

[trollman]

One of the things I like about OD&D is that the monsters aren't that fleshed out. But even so, there is still a great deal of monster standardization. What I mean is this - a skeleton is a skeleton with certain fixed AC and hit dice, etc.

So when characters see a skeleton, they say ho-hum, another wimpy skeleton, it has this and this ability, a cleric needs to roll this to turn it, and so on. But in pulp fantasy, one set of skeletons might have special powers, which are completely different than skeletons found in another dungeon.

All forms of D&D have allowed some variability (goblin chief has higher stats than goblin peon). However, they all tend to assume monster "standardization" - for example, see the cleric turn undead table.

I prefer a more mythical view towards monsters. That a monster book ought to include vague and conflicting descriptions of monsters, for they are shrouded in mystery. They would also tend to vary... a lot. I think it would be a good idea if such a collection of monsters would include a list of special traits, so the ref could choose how to customize their monsters (and it would be highly recommended that the ref specialize each monster for each area they are encountered).

So while you're players might run into skeletons, perhaps these undead at this site can only be harmed by doing X. At a different dungeon, you might run into skeletons that do not stay dead, but reassemble their bones within a certain time of being destroyed, etc. This would keep players from saying "Ho hum, just another group of skeletons."

[coffee]

Supplement I: Greyhawk, p. 63:

Under "Monstrous Tricks and Combination Monsters"

Skeletons who are able to hurl their finger joints as if they were magic arrows.

As DM, you can do whatever you want with your monsters. That's the way the game was always intended to be played; at least according to the recollections of its many contributors. I'd go so far as to say you not only have the right, but the obligation (on occasion) to shake things up.

Gary Gygax himself specifically went on record as saying that if you couldn't remember the stats of a specific monster, you should just make it up! I have no doubt that's how he played the game.


And, in addition to all that, the special encounters are the ones the players will remember. Just another batch of skeletons will quickly fade into obscurity, but a batch of skeletons that, say, burst into flames when hit -- that'll be talked about for a while.

Anyway, just my two coppers.

[makofan]

In my online game, I have spiders that range in size from 1 hit point to 27 hit points - the players have to roughly judge by the size of the spider how much trouble they are in

[dwayanu]

Tunnels & Trolls is intentionally vaguer about monsters, and even more so about magic items. D&D's many more detailed examples can be helpful, but they can also be taken as definitive.

It's probably a good idea to have some "standards" to help players make decisions. Most Goblins (or Brigands, or whatever) should fall within a fairly narrow range of capability. The exceptionally tough ones should usually be identifiable in some way.

Of course, Karg the Reaver King (a match for any eight of his piratical minions) might be in disguise ...

Variations of the sort described in that wonderful section of Supplement I are great for spicing up encounters, but more for dealing with experienced characters and players.

Going in the other direction, a fantastic realm might easily hold a few monsters weaker than usual. Maybe there are Magenta Worms not quite as big as the Purple. A Manticore might have lost its spikes, or have a poisoned stinger instead. Evolution or magic may have produced all sorts of "mutants." Undead might be stronger or weaker (or have odd powers) depending on where they are or where/how they were created.

And so on!

[busman]

May 12, 2008 10:46:46 GMT -6 makofan said:

In my online game, I have spiders that range in size from 1 hit point to 27 hit points - the players have to roughly judge by the size of the spider how much trouble they are in

Or fail to, as the case may be.

[trollman]

I've never owned T&T or Supplement I. All I have of OD&D is the 3 LBBs (bought the pdfs) & Blackmoor (the pdf is available for free). I've been thinking about picking up the pdfs for Chainmail (for the 2d6 combat) and Greyhawk, but haven't gotten around to it.

I just like the idea that, every time a character sees a monster, the heroes have to wonder what kind of abilities it might have, and if they'll even be able to hurt it. One of the more exciting things about reading some of the Conan stuff is, every time he encounters a nonhuman monster, you don't really know what he will be running up against.

I guess it ties into my view of magic items - you never know what you are getting into.

[coffee]

May 12, 2008 20:08:25 GMT -6 trollman said:

I've never owned T&T or Supplement I. All I have of OD&D is the 3 LBBs (bought the pdfs) & Blackmoor (the pdf is available for free). I've been thinking about picking up the pdfs for Chainmail (for the 2d6 combat) and Greyhawk, but haven't gotten around to it.

I just like the idea that, every time a character sees a monster, the heroes have to wonder what kind of abilities it might have, and if they'll even be able to hurt it. One of the more exciting things about reading some of the Conan stuff is, every time he encounters a nonhuman monster, you don't really know what he will be running up against.

I guess it ties into my view of magic items - you never know what you are getting into.

Very good point, Trollman! This is why it's important to describe the monsters, instead of just saying "you see some goblins". Don't give your players a free ride; keep them on their toes! They'll become better players in the long run.

[ffilz]

May 12, 2008 20:08:25 GMT -6 trollman said:

I just like the idea that, every time a character sees a monster, the heroes have to wonder what kind of abilities it might have, and if they'll even be able to hurt it.

The danger of this "wondering" is if "every" encounter is this way, with no clues as to danger of the encounter, is that the players can no longer make intelligent decisions about whether to fight or run.

Frank

[makofan]

I agree Frank. My players expect a spider "the size of a dinner plate" to have fewer hit points than a spider "the size of a large dog".

[jjarvis]

You can get a heck of a lot of mileage out of new descriptions. Have a pack of goblins with faceted spider-like eyes and long creepy fingers and they are a whole new monster to the players.

[trollman]

Variable monsters doesn't mean players can't have an idea of how dangerous an encounter is. Each kind of monster would have certain tendencies, but these shouldn't be taken to be anywhere near absolute.

The problem with just relying on monster descriptions is that players can easily figure out what kind of monster it is - ah ha! These are goblins, they have such and such hit dice, certain abilities, blah blah blah.

To come up with a monster collection with the idea of making them variable, the monster descriptions would be vague, contain some contradictory information, hit dice are usually from 1 to 4, some say they do X, but others have reported Y. This way, even if players have read the monster book, they are still left guessing.

The 1E MM's entry for Drow is a good example of what I am talking about - just some clues, gives you an idea of their abilities, but leaves a lot to the imagination.

[dwayanu]

Great example (Monster Manual Drow)! Just regard other entries in the "official" bestiary as about as reliable.