About Monsters/NPCs...

[Doomwarden]

...at this point they're my last remaining real concern. I do hope they have Stats and such and don't revert to being just a bland modifier-less stack of meat with xp attached...that's the biggest (by far) knock I have on old-school D&D.

[kataskicana]

I might be in the minority, but I actually don't need stats for monsters outside of their 'combat' stats. How strong is a Giant? Stronger than you... how smart is a Giant? (depends on the story that is being told) The dexterity of a giant ant was never something I lost sleep over.

As far as monsters not just being slabs of meat with XP values attached.... that is 100% how they are played and has nothing to do with the presence or lack of a stat-block. 99.99 of all monsters in 3.x and 4.x are just meat bags despite taking up waaay too much space in a bestiary.

[muherd]

Agreed. And I don't want to have to convert all the monsters for the dungeon crawl from other 3E books either Here's hoping for a DCC monster manual, either hard copy or online...

[Doomwarden]

I might be in the minority, but I actually don't need stats for monsters outside of their 'combat' stats. How strong is a Giant? Stronger than you... how smart is a Giant? (depends on the story that is being told) The dexterity of a giant ant was never something I lost sleep over.

As far as monsters not just being slabs of meat with XP values attached.... that is 100% how they are played and has nothing to do with the presence or lack of a stat-block. 99.99 of all monsters in 3.x and 4.x are just meat bags despite taking up waaay too much space in a bestiary.

Perhaps I wasn't clear, I don't need or want a creature to have skill ranks (probably not an issue in DCC anyway) in basket-weaving but I would like to know how MUCH stronger that Giant is than the parties main muscle man or just HOW smart the enemy Lich is in case it come down to say a riddle contest or somesuch versus the brains of the party. Especially for tinkering purposes (not every Hill Giant is exactly as strong as every other one IMHO). But I especially do want them to have combat modifiers; most of the old-school creatures did 1dx damage with no plus to damage even if it was as big as a house, while the fighter got his nice +2 or +3 damage...that always bugged me. I've looked at Castles&Crusades and it has the no stat/modifier for creatures too. To be honest that was the main reason I never gave C&C a try...

[GnomeBoy]

Agreed. And I don't want to have to convert all the monsters for the dungeon crawl from other 3E books either Here's hoping for a DCC monster manual, either hard copy or online...

As I understand it, there will be a spread of monsters in the rule book, and monsters will be simple enough to create your own pretty easily (on the fly, or not, is an open question).

[Doomwarden]

Not even a little hint??? Pretty please

[GnomeBoy]

I forgot to mention that Joseph has a stated intention that all the modules would have original monsters in them -- so I guess in a sense each module will be a mini-MM for the levels the adventure covers...

[Doomwarden]

I forgot to mention that Joseph has a stated intention that all the modules would have original monsters in them -- so I guess in a sense each module will be a mini-MM for the levels the adventure covers...

Well that sounds interesting, thanks for the info...

[finarvyn]

Part of the problem we're going to encounter philosophically is that Joseph intends for monsters to be unique and not generic. You wouldn't fight a minotaur, you would fight The Minotaur. In order to keep things interesting, it's important that there not be too many guidelines for the players to memorize.

What we need is a general way for a DM to make an estimate of abilities without giving the players a firm number to "know" since knowing absolute stats for a monster would ruin some of its mystique. Perhaps a compromise to the "every monster has stats" issue would be to create a general scale by which creatures could compare.

For example, maybe a simple Strength chart could do this:
10 = average human
16 = ogre
18 = giant
20 = dragon

That kind of thing. This way a DM could look at a monster and think "well, it's probably stronger than a human but less than an ogre ... maybe a 14." Easy for the DM, not too well defined for the rules lawyers.

[jmucchiello]

I forgot to mention that Joseph has a stated intention that all the modules would have original monsters in them -- so I guess in a sense each module will be a mini-MM for the levels the adventure covers...

What I like about this (hey, I like something, go figure) is it mirrors the old 1e early modules that would have original monsters in them. A lot of classic critters first appeared in various early classic adventures.

[finarvyn]

And, like it or not, if it's in the core rulebook there's a good chance that players will see it and know about it. Especially if you have a group that rotates DM's. So, having new monsters in each module helps keep things fresh and unknown.

[Noodles]

Keep in mind this is the company that published Raggi's excellent Random Esoteric Creature Generator. Shouldn't be too difficult to use this product with DCC, or even release a DCC version of it.

[Noodles]

How about a DCC Random Esoteric Creature Generator?

[Doomwarden]

And, like it or not, if it's in the core rulebook there's a good chance that players will see it and know about it. Especially if you have a group that rotates DM's. So, having new monsters in each module helps keep things fresh and unknown.

Good point, though it strikes me that even if GG doesn't do their own version of the 'Monster Manual' surely a 3rd party version will pop fairly soon. Although I really like the idea of new monsters with each module too...

[jmucchiello]

And, like it or not, if it's in the core rulebook there's a good chance that players will see it and know about it. Especially if you have a group that rotates DM's. So, having new monsters in each module helps keep things fresh and unknown.

I don't consider this an issue. I can always switch things up if I need to or rely on the maturity of my players to stay in character if I'm feeling lazy.

[finarvyn]

And, like it or not, if it's in the core rulebook there's a good chance that players will see it and know about it. Especially if you have a group that rotates DM's. So, having new monsters in each module helps keep things fresh and unknown.

I don't consider this an issue. I can always switch things up if I need to or rely on the maturity of my players to stay in character if I'm feeling lazy.

For most of my players, it isn't either. I have one who has a fantastic memory, is often a great rulebook-quoter, and tends to know monster weaknesses. "Oh, it's an X -- let's throw water on it..."

That means that I constantly have to switch things up if I want to keep them guessing, and sometimes it feels like I'm "cheating" in order to make monsters harder to kill. With a new RPG it's easier to rationalize that monster X in this game might be different than in a different game so a different trick would be in order.

Besides, I know that Joseph wants to avoid having too many stereotypes and wants more monsters to feel unique, the way a character in Appendix N might have felt upon encountering it. That may be a campaign-specific notion, but I believe that it's high on his list of DCC monster guidelines and it makes a generic book of monsters less valuable.

Having said that, of course somebody (GG or other) will crank out one or more monster books. Players want them.

[geordie racer]

Having said that, of course somebody (GG or other) will crank out one or more monster books. Players want them.

You'd think so, but I'm unsure whether this is true. I know the Swords & Wizardry Monster Book hasn't been re-vamped because the sales weren't good. Frog God Games seem to be going for profit rather than turnover with the new Tome of Horrors compilation - it's more a luxury collector's item (I do like the inclusion of lairs, adventure seeds in the S&W version though). The big cost is artwork, we'd all like every monster to be illustrated, which also takes up space, making the book bigger and more expensive.

And we've all seen many of these monsters before. Hence the creation of products for creating random monsters, but most of these work better for creating creatures before play as they take time. The exception to this is Stefan Poag's Exquisite Corpses , which can easily produce a wide variety of monsters during play - high concept, high playability.

Probably (and I'm just guessing) the less complicated the statblock, the less monster manuals are sold nowadays. Especially when there's so much support on the net.

I like the fact that GG are putting unique monsters in the adventures, making each one special (therefore collectable) and an event for both players and characters. Added to the idea of making 'standard' monsters less predictable makes this approach a big plus for me.

But no doubt monster books will surface, maybe even in a delve format !

Are there any Appendix N monsters that aren't represented (or don't have an equivalent) in the D&D SRD ?

[finarvyn]

Good points, Sean. I haven't been trying to study sales figures and it's possible that the market is saturated already.

I guess it comes down to whether or not there are enough differences in DCC RPG compared to other games whereby conversion is tricky and/or it's just easier to buy a monster book rather than do it yourself.

Or eventually, if enough unique monsters come out, having a speciall compillation of those....

[Doomwarden]

Having said that, of course somebody (GG or other) will crank out one or more monster books. Players want them.

You'd think so, but I'm unsure whether this is true. I know the Swords & Wizardry Monster Book hasn't been re-vamped because the sales weren't good. Frog God Games seem to be going for profit rather than turnover with the new Tome of Horrors compilation - it's more a luxury collector's item (I do like the inclusion of lairs, adventure seeds in the S&W version though). The big cost is artwork, we'd all like every monster to be illustrated, which also takes up space, making the book bigger and more expensive.

And we've all seen many of these monsters before. Hence the creation of products for creating random monsters, but most of these work better for creating creatures before play as they take time. The exception to this is Stefan Poag's Exquisite Corpses , which can easily produce a wide variety of monsters during play - high concept, high playability.

Probably (and I'm just guessing) the less complicated the statblock, the less monster manuals are sold nowadays. Especially when there's so much support on the net.

I like the fact that GG are putting unique monsters in the adventures, making each one special (therefore collectable) and an event for both players and characters. Added to the idea of making 'standard' monsters less predictable makes this approach a big plus for me.

But no doubt monster books will surface, maybe even in a delve format !

Are there any Appendix N monsters that aren't represented (or don't have an equivalent) in the D&D SRD ?

Delve format eh? Now that REALLY got my attention

[moes1980]

well, flipping though my old DnD basic rules encyclopedia made me wonder why monster manuals were every needed? The book seems to have rules for everything imagenible in the game, yet it also fit in a comprehinsive monster manual covering tons of monsters, both standard (goblins, dragons, etc) and exotic creatures. And it didnt skimp, I think its something like 3 pages explaining how to build a dragon based on age and type, breaking down its special abilities, hps, ac, and all that stuff. It sounds like Mr Goodman is wanting to do the same thing with DCCRPG. My guess is that the core book will have enough monsters to run plenty of campaigns, and enough info to creat and adjust your own monsters when using commen sense. While new monster books might be avaliable in the future, my hope is that you will never find yourself running out of monsters to use from the core book. Though, I do think a nice supplemental monster manual could include alll the new monsters that get introduced in the moduals.

As for including monster stats, that is probably a good idea just for the purpose of determining how likely it is a monster can kick down a door, or jump a roof top, or something like that. Also, if spells do ability damage then you deffinintly need to know the abilities of the monsters that are being targetd by such effects. But, in games that dont offer all that info, I never really had any problems that I can rememer either, so it will probably work out either way.

[jmucchiello]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, there will not be (initially) a monster book. DCCRPG assumes a world where monsters are generally alien and unique so each module will have a bunch of new monsters in it that the players will know nothing about.

[Doomwarden]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, there will not be (initially) a monster book. DCCRPG assumes a world where monsters are generally alien and unique so each module will have a bunch of new monsters in it that the players will know nothing about.

Well that's undeniably "Old School..."