Page 1 of 1
I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 6:54 pm
by Geoffrey
The beta includes information on several standard monsters such as basilisks, bugbears, goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, etc.
I vote that all this sort of thing be excised from the final rulebook. After all, these old humdrum monsters are not going to be in any of the modules for the DCC RPG. In their place, I recommend giving half-a-dozen or so sample monsters, each one unique and nothing at all like any of the standards. Include a sentence referring the reader to James Raggi's Random Esoteric Creature Generator (RECG for short).
If feasible, I suggest getting together with James and altering the RECG to fully conform to, and explicitly be a supplement for, the DCC RPG. Plus, fill the thing with art and give it a layout like that of the beta. All that would be so cool.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 4:27 am
by finarvyn
An interesting concept.
1. On one hand, the lack of standardized monsters would be very much in keeping with the Appendix N books, where most of the time each creeping tentacled thingie seems pretty much unique.
2. On the other hand, many gamers may want to run older modules with the DCC rules set and not including such monsters might diminish their interest in the rules.
I'm not sure which way I lean on this. Must ponder further....
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:12 am
by geordie racer
Geoffrey wrote: In their place, I recommend giving half-a-dozen or so sample monsters, each one unique and nothing at all like any of the standards.
A problem is that these monsters could become seen as canon - they become the standard monsters.
I suppose I would rather have a list of monsters from Appendix N (and not just Tolkien) itself that reflect the breadth of the source matter.
Less D&D, more Appendix N.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:24 am
by Geoffrey
finarvyn wrote:[M]any gamers may want to run older modules with the DCC rules set and not including such monsters might diminish their interest in the rules.
Perhaps Goodman could go through their old DCC modules in order of intended level (0, 1, 2, etc.) and provide on their website free conversions of the monsters that appear in the modules. That way the rulebook wouldn't be saddled with the umpteenth description of orcs, goblins, and all the rest.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:25 am
by Geoffrey
geordie racer wrote:Geoffrey wrote: In their place, I recommend giving half-a-dozen or so sample monsters, each one unique and nothing at all like any of the standards.
A problem is that these monsters could become seen as canon - they become the standard monsters.
That is indeed a danger. Perhaps if only one or two truly weird examples were given, this problem could be minimized.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:48 am
by jmucchiello
I'm sorry, but orcs, hobgoblins, ogres and trolls must be in the rulebook. You can't dungeon crawl without the old standbys. There's nothing wrong with the standard monsters becoming standard. In fact, the weird monsters would feel less weird without "mundane" monsters to compare them against.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:12 am
by Geoffrey
jmucchiello wrote:I'm sorry, but orcs, hobgoblins, ogres and trolls must be in the rulebook. You can't dungeon crawl without the old standbys. There's nothing wrong with the standard monsters becoming standard. In fact, the weird monsters would feel less weird without "mundane" monsters to compare them against.
How do you feel about the new direction that the DCC modules will take, described by Harley thus:
No Old Monsters
Joseph’s first design mantra. Or better put, no known monsters. The world of the DCC RPG is the world of the unknown. As blacksmiths, woodsmen, squires, beggars and slaves, the 0-level PCs in our games are ignorant of the wider world, its mysteries and threats.
We’ve all run games in the past 25 years where this was true of our PCs. But now you have the chance to make it true for your players.
Every adventure will have new monsters that your PCs (or players!) haven’t faced before. Weird, ungodly, alien new monsters, whose very existence threatens the logic of our staid, simple lives. These aren’t the same entries regurgitated from the last 20 monster manuals, these are beasts from the outer dark that live up to the title of “Monster.”
Our players are comfortable with the known. Even if their PCs are 1st level, the players have all “been here and done that” before.
Never again. It’s time for a true test of courage, to pit their precious PCs against something terrifyingly unknown.
[link:
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 60&t=12438 ]
I contrast weird monsters with human opponents and real-world animals. I do not contrast weird monsters with orcs, goblins, gargoyles, etc. In other words, in my games each monster is monstrous and unique. Only mundane animals and humans are mundane. There are no mundane monsters in my games.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 2:52 pm
by GnomeBoy
I thought the 'standard' monsters were there for the sake of tradition, and for the sake of being a basis of comparison or foundation for the creation of your own monsters -- raw material for DMs to embellish, tweak, template-ize, etc.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:22 pm
by finarvyn
geordie racer wrote:A problem is that these monsters could become seen as canon - they become the standard monsters.
Ah, the irony!
GnomeBoy wrote:I thought the 'standard' monsters were there for the sake of tradition, and for the sake of being a basis of comparison or foundation for the creation of your own monsters -- raw material for DMs to embellish, tweak, template-ize, etc.
They are. Remember that this thread was a suggestion by a poster, not a proclaimation by Joseph. I've seen nothing to indicate that the traditional monsters would go away for any reason.
Just because the company line is "no old monsters" for modules doesn't mean that your home campaign has to follow this model. I think the intent is to expand the horizons of the genre with unique monsters in modules, not to exorcize them from your campaign.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:27 pm
by goodmangames
GnomeBoy wrote:I thought the 'standard' monsters were there for the sake of tradition, and for the sake of being a basis of comparison or foundation for the creation of your own monsters -- raw material for DMs to embellish, tweak, template-ize, etc.
GnomeBoy, you've hit the nail on the head. There are stats for many of the "standard" monsters, so the reader knows the power scale for his own creations. It's something of a necessary evil, I believe.
However, this is one element of the beta that "came across wrong." The standard monsters in the final draft are prefaced by a lot of discussion, ideas, and tables for "making monsters unique." I don't think that anyone will walk away thinking that their goblins should be green.
That, and the first monster entry is "Android." This is a monster list inspired by Appendix N.
Re: I think standard monsters should not be in the rulebook.
Posted: Tue Oct 04, 2011 5:20 pm
by reverenddak
goodmangames wrote:
The standard monsters in the final draft are prefaced by a lot of discussion, ideas, and tables for "making monsters unique." I don't think that anyone will walk away thinking that their goblins should be green.
That, and the first monster entry is "Android." This is a monster list inspired by Appendix N.
YES! I'm stoked to hear that there will be some monster building tools. Even if it's just a monster re-skinner, that makes me happy.
And Android?! ... I'm giddy.