Goodman Games

Inspired by Dreamscarred Press:

Dreamscarred Press's 2011 Bestiary Contest!

Dreamscarred Press is proud to announce its first Bestiary Contest. The contest is designed to give new, unknown, and struggling game designers the opportunity to be published. Dreamscarred Press owners Jeremy Smith and Andreas Rönnqvist will judge the entries and oversee the competition.

As the name implies, the contest is for monsters to be released in a psionic bestiary to be published by Dreamscarred Press. The winner of the contest will receive a paid commission to work on that bestiary.

Will be kewl to see what DCC RPGers can come up.

Dreamscarred Beastiary sounds like a neat contest, but original monsters don't seem to quite fit the focus of DCC at this point.

Perhaps this is too much of a thread-jack, but what I'd like to see is a contest whereby we create a list of monsters statted out for DCC RPG that appear in Appendix N.

1. Name the monster
2. Briefly describe the monster
3. Stat it out
4. Cite the Appendix N source.

Great idea -can't wait for the Thark fumble table - 'all 4 arms in a knot'

What's a DCCrpg statblock gonna look like ?

geordie racer wrote:Great idea -can't wait for the Thark fumble table - 'all 4 arms in a knot'

What's a DCCrpg statblock gonna look like ?

It might be kind of a pain if each monster has it's own crit and fumble tables. I'm hoping that there will just be some tables per type of monster like one for humanoids and goblins roll a d6, orcs a d8, gnolls a d10, and ogres a d12. Something like that.

I agree, stuff like 'your Swanmay is sliced up, soon to be served with a subtle but fruity sauce' is just too specific.

So take 2 Banths :
old school
new school
In terms of complexity - which of these would a DCC Banth statblock be closer to ?

The more iconic monsters do have their own crit tables.

Stat blocks are a very simple, stripped-down version of 3E, usually 2-3 rows long. And yes, I do recall that "simplified stat blocks" was also one of the early selling points of 4E! Don't worry, DCC RPG will actually deliver on this.

Regarding monsters in general, I have something to say on the subject...one of the ways that traditional D&D lets you down over time is that you, as a player, begin to know what to expect from monsters, and that aspect of the game loses its magic - the "fantasy" becomes predictable. This happens whether you read the Monster Manual or not - even if you're a player who resists that temptation, you find yourself knowing what to expect from an orc or an ogre.

Compare this to the heroes of Appendix N, who routinely faced dangers whose capabilities they could not assess prior to combat. Conan feared the supernatural whenever he faced it! And compare this to your memories of early D&D. Remember when you didn't know whether "the pig-faced humanoid" was a threat or not? Yet now you yawn and say "orc - no big deal"...

Without going into detail in another long post (I need to save something for the designer's diaries!), let me just say that these are challenges that DCC RPG attempts to address. There are tables and processes for varying the look of humanoids, un-dead, oozes, and other "far too common" creatures. Players will not know what they face. The stat system is simple enough that a DM can create stats very, very quickly, so it will be easy to visualize a monster that fits the needs of a scenario, then quickly stat it up. The published modules will include 100% new opponents. In other words, the core book may have stats for an orc, with simple methods to generate variants (both visual and statistical), but no module will have an orc. I want to make the point very clearly that the concept of pre-D&D swords & sorcery requires breaking the conventions of D&D when it comes to predictable monsters. So far we have the first four modules written and in various stages of playtesting, and we've written all four of these without including a single conventional D&D creature - yet they all play wonderfully like classic-era D&D adventures.

goodmangames wrote:Regarding monsters in general, I have something to say on the subject...one of the ways that traditional D&D lets you down over time is that you, as a player, begin to know what to expect from monsters, and that aspect of the game loses its magic - the "fantasy" becomes predictable. This happens whether you read the Monster Manual or not - even if you're a player who resists that temptation, you find yourself knowing what to expect from an orc or an ogre.

Compare this to the heroes of Appendix N, who routinely faced dangers whose capabilities they could not assess prior to combat. Conan feared the supernatural whenever he faced it! And compare this to your memories of early D&D. Remember when you didn't know whether "the pig-faced humanoid" was a threat or not? Yet now you yawn and say "orc - no big deal"...

Without going into detail in another long post (I need to save something for the designer's diaries!), let me just say that these are challenges that DCC RPG attempts to address. There are tables and processes for varying the look of humanoids, un-dead, oozes, and other "far too common" creatures. Players will not know what they face. The stat system is simple enough that a DM can create stats very, very quickly, so it will be easy to visualize a monster that fits the needs of a scenario, then quickly stat it up. The published modules will include 100% new opponents. In other words, the core book may have stats for an orc, with simple methods to generate variants (both visual and statistical), but no module will have an orc. I want to make the point very clearly that the concept of pre-D&D swords & sorcery requires breaking the conventions of D&D when it comes to predictable monsters. So far we have the first four modules written and in various stages of playtesting, and we've written all four of these without including a single conventional D&D creature - yet they all play wonderfully like classic-era D&D adventures.

AMEN!

I've been a believer ever since James Raggi enlightened me on this point in late 2008.

The way to experience the same wonder we did when we first started playing is NOT to use the same monsters that we used when we first started playing. Orcs, trolls, shriekers, and all the rest were new to us then. So to get that same sense of the fantastic one should use monsters that are new to us now.

And doubly good for you to "put your money where your mouth is" with your plan to never use an old "standard" monster in any of your modules. Totally, totally awesome.

Joesph,

I'll respect what you are saying, yet I would urge a middle ground. While Conan may have feared the supernatural at all times, he often faced the usual assortment of foes; humans in Conan's world.

I do enjoy having the "run of the mill" orcs and goblins. In fact, I would argue by having one's opponents being, on the whole, common villains, the odd, bizarre, or "super-natural" becomes even more heightened. One cannot maintain a constant state of the unknown, before the whole experience begins to break down.

Of course, this is but one DMs thoughts on the subject. To me, a fantasy game that does not have the common foes, be it mankind, goblins, orcs, or lizardmen, it loses a valuable link to its heritage. The sense of the fantastical that you wrote about when we were first playing the game does not have to go away. As long as the gamers are willing to recall the game is about imagination and very little about rules, I maintain goblins, et. al., can still give the players a feeling of the mythical. (Keep in mind, I've never lost my sense of wonder with the game in 30+ years of gaming. From what I've read, many have.)

In closing, if this rambles or worse is off-topic, I apologize. I should never post when my asthma bothers me, but I was intrigued by Joesph's message tonight.

goodmangames wrote:The more iconic monsters do have their own crit tables.

Stat blocks are a very simple, stripped-down version of 3E, usually 2-3 rows long. And yes, I do recall that "simplified stat blocks" was also one of the early selling points of 4E! Don't worry, DCC RPG will actually deliver on this.

Regarding monsters in general, I have something to say on the subject...one of the ways that traditional D&D lets you down over time is that you, as a player, begin to know what to expect from monsters, and that aspect of the game loses its magic - the "fantasy" becomes predictable. This happens whether you read the Monster Manual or not - even if you're a player who resists that temptation, you find yourself knowing what to expect from an orc or an ogre.

Compare this to the heroes of Appendix N, who routinely faced dangers whose capabilities they could not assess prior to combat. Conan feared the supernatural whenever he faced it! And compare this to your memories of early D&D. Remember when you didn't know whether "the pig-faced humanoid" was a threat or not? Yet now you yawn and say "orc - no big deal"...

Without going into detail in another long post (I need to save something for the designer's diaries!), let me just say that these are challenges that DCC RPG attempts to address. There are tables and processes for varying the look of humanoids, un-dead, oozes, and other "far too common" creatures. Players will not know what they face. The stat system is simple enough that a DM can create stats very, very quickly, so it will be easy to visualize a monster that fits the needs of a scenario, then quickly stat it up. The published modules will include 100% new opponents. In other words, the core book may have stats for an orc, with simple methods to generate variants (both visual and statistical), but no module will have an orc. I want to make the point very clearly that the concept of pre-D&D swords & sorcery requires breaking the conventions of D&D when it comes to predictable monsters. So far we have the first four modules written and in various stages of playtesting, and we've written all four of these without including a single conventional D&D creature - yet they all play wonderfully like classic-era D&D adventures.

*Just had a nerdgasm*

JediOre wrote:I would argue by having one's opponents being, on the whole, common villains, the odd, bizarre, or "super-natural" becomes even more heightened. One cannot maintain a constant state of the unknown, before the whole experience begins to break down.

Of course, this is but one DMs thoughts on the subject. To me, a fantasy game that does not have the common foes, be it mankind, goblins, orcs, or lizardmen, it loses a valuable link to its heritage.

I assume that the DCC game has plenty of humans (along with wild animals) as the common foes.

goodmangames wrote: I want to make the point very clearly that the concept of pre-D&D swords & sorcery requires breaking the conventions of D&D when it comes to predictable monsters. So far we have the first four modules written and in various stages of playtesting, and we've written all four of these without including a single conventional D&D creature - yet they all play wonderfully like classic-era D&D adventures.

Tremendous - I agree with Geoffrey

When I first starting gaming in the mid '80s we had an encounter with a Troll for the first time(the DM didn't even describe it and let us guess - he just told us what it was a Troll) and straight away someone said 'Ah, let's use burning arrows, and Fireball', taking the mystery away. Straight from anxiety back to the comfort zone of knowing the correct 'tools for the job.'

I have no problem with the party developing a broad strategy for types of foes they've encountered several times but there should be enough randomization that the players cannot be sure the same tactics will definitely work every time.

JediOre wrote: I'll respect what you are saying, yet I would urge a middle ground. While Conan may have feared the supernatural at all times, he often faced the usual assortment of foes; humans in Conan's world.

I do enjoy having the "run of the mill" orcs and goblins. In fact, I would argue by having one's opponents being, on the whole, common villains, the odd, bizarre, or "super-natural" becomes even more heightened. One cannot maintain a constant state of the unknown, before the whole experience begins to break down.

Of course, this is but one DMs thoughts on the subject. To me, a fantasy game that does not have the common foes, be it mankind, goblins, orcs, or lizardmen, it loses a valuable link to its heritage. The sense of the fantastical that you wrote about when we were first playing the game does not have to go away. As long as the gamers are willing to recall the game is about imagination and very little about rules, I maintain goblins, et. al., can still give the players a feeling of the mythical. (Keep in mind, I've never lost my sense of wonder with the game in 30+ years of gaming. From what I've read, many have.)

I agree with this. I've always considered goblins, orcs, trolls, etc. to be part of the natural fauna of a D&D fantasy world. You could take a Conan story and substitute goblins for picts or orcs for hyrkanians and not miss a beat. And knowing that trolls hate fire is along the same lines as knowing that bears like honey. Yes, there should be weird, unique stuff - but not everything should be weird and unique. As the saying goes- when everyone is special, nobody is.

mshensley wrote: I've always considered goblins, orcs, trolls, etc. to be part of the natural fauna of a D&D fantasy world. You could take a Conan story and substitute goblins for picts or orcs for hyrkanians and not miss a beat. And knowing that trolls hate fire is along the same lines as knowing that bears like honey.

Different strokes, I suppose . I didn't think the game was about doing another D&D, I thought it was taking D20 to Appendix N. I dunno whether in the books (I've only read 1/2 the list) Trolls are that common that everyone 'knows' stuff about them - maybe 'believes' but doesn't know for sure. Remember that the O-level characters aren't veteran adventurers yet.

mshensley wrote:Yes, there should be weird, unique stuff - but not everything should be weird and unique. As the saying goes- when everyone is special, nobody is.

I agree with this. I'm not saying everything is Mundane or Other, there are degrees of weirdness. Some things are the stuff of local rumour, even legend, others are just unknown quantity. But as always, the GM can add the desired flavour.

geordie racer wrote:Different strokes, I suppose . I didn't think the game was about doing another D&D, I thought it was taking D20 to Appendix N.

True, but lets be realistic. Even if they are mainly focusing on making a totally new fantasy game based solely on the Appendix N books, the 800lb gorilla on that list is Tolkien. LotR has probably sold more books than all of the rest of the list combined and that's not even counting the movies that have made more than a billion dollars. It's the one book on the list that almost everyone has at least heard of. Hell, it even has Cliff Notes for it. And doing LotR means having orcs, goblins, dwarves, elves, hobbits, trolls, giants, dragons, ents, wraiths, giant spiders, etc. That sounds a lot like D&D to me.

mshensley wrote:

geordie racer wrote:Different strokes, I suppose . I didn't think the game was about doing another D&D, I thought it was taking D20 to Appendix N.

True, but lets be realistic. Even if they are mainly focusing on making a totally new fantasy game based solely on the Appendix N books, the 800lb gorilla on that list is Tolkien. LotR has probably sold more books than all of the rest of the list combined and that's not even counting the movies that have made more than a billion dollars. It's the one book on the list that almost everyone has at least heard of. Hell, it even has Cliff Notes for it. And doing LotR means having orcs, goblins, dwarves, elves, hobbits, trolls, giants, dragons, ents, wraiths, giant spiders, etc. That sounds a lot like D&D to me.

Joseph said Orc (et al) stats will be in rules, but there's no need for a slew of purely Tolkienian modules - there's 30+ years of that.

geordie racer wrote:Joseph said Orc (et al) stats will be in rules, but there's no need for a slew of purely Tolkienian modules - there's 30+ years of that.

I can agree with that. Personally I'd like to see adventures that aren't so geared towards altruistic pc's. Conan was robbing tombs and breaking into temples, not trying to rescue little kids kidnapped from ye olde local village. Of course that's part of the problem with trying to say that the game will have the flavor of appendix n books. Those books are all over the place in flavor. Tolkien is very pastoral, good vs. evil stuff while most S&S stories I've read are mainly about urban anti-heroes.

"Unusual monsters" don't have to be big weird things with tentacles and an odd number of eyes. How about a small, scrawny humanoid with blue skin? Is that a goblin - or a Hyrkanian - or something else? There can still be goblins - but they need not look like a goblin.

To a villager who's never journeyed more than 10 miles from where he was born, everything is a "goblin." Or maybe a "demon." Regardless, that villager has no point of reference for "different kinds of humanoids" - in the same sense that medieval Europeans had no concept of the zebra or giraffe, and considered them mythical creatures. Part of "fantasy" is remembering what it's like to occupy world where books are scarce, there are no mechanical printing presses, and literacy itself is a rarity - much less libraries, a postal service, or any convenient methods of long-distance communication (such as a phone or even a telegram). When almost every piece of information is transported verbally, the "telephone game" applies to EVERYTHING. To the typical medieval adventurer, almost everything he knows beyond simple farming and basic professional knowledge is third, fourth, or fifth-hand. Imagine that - almost everything your character knows past his first-hand experience is learned from verbal sources, with no reliable way of confirming if the information is accurate or not. There is no written reference -- no encyclopedia or internet -- almost no definite knowledge -- and no source of reliable information! It's so easy to forget how easy information flow is in the modern era. The basic concept of "spell research" has evolved from "trial and error, lots of experimentation, and years of questing" to "go find a magic scroll and copy down a spell." No! Spell research should mean things blow up! Expensive materials are lost! Distant continents must be searched for rare ingredients! Covetous rival wizards must be bribed or exterminated! And THEN the wizard has to find an old hermit who knows how to contact a demon who remembers where a relic is buried which may hint at powers now forgotten!

I'm getting off on another tangent, but looping back to the point: "mystery" is not "throw in lots of crazy monsters" - it's about managing information flow to the players. Goblins and trolls can be quite mysterious if they look a little different, or if they're referred to constantly as "demons" by terrified villagers. There will be goblins, orcs, and trolls in the game - as well as plenty of human NPCs. It's up to the judge to manage the information flow to players properly, and that determines whether a goblin looks like a traditional goblin, or looks like something else. And it's that moment of "encountering the unknown" - or, put differently, the moment of "confirmation of whether information was accurate or not" - that makes fantasy fantastic. What is that blue humanoid? Is that what the villager meant by a "goblin"? Is that what the wizard meant by a "demon"? Or is the blue guy just a native from the next village in war paint??

mshensley wrote:

geordie racer wrote:Joseph said Orc (et al) stats will be in rules, but there's no need for a slew of purely Tolkienian modules - there's 30+ years of that.

I can agree with that. Personally I'd like to see adventures that aren't so geared towards altruistic pc's. Conan was robbing tombs and breaking into temples, not trying to rescue little kids kidnapped from ye olde local village. Of course that's part of the problem with trying to say that the game will have the flavor of appendix n books. Those books are all over the place in flavor. Tolkien is very pastoral, good vs. evil stuff while most S&S stories I've read are mainly about urban anti-heroes.

I agree with you as well. I'm reading Fritz Leiber and Fafrhd and Mouse are definitely not altruistic.

DCCfan wrote:

mshensley wrote:

geordie racer wrote:Joseph said Orc (et al) stats will be in rules, but there's no need for a slew of purely Tolkienian modules - there's 30+ years of that.

I can agree with that. Personally I'd like to see adventures that aren't so geared towards altruistic pc's. Conan was robbing tombs and breaking into temples, not trying to rescue little kids kidnapped from ye olde local village. Of course that's part of the problem with trying to say that the game will have the flavor of appendix n books. Those books are all over the place in flavor. Tolkien is very pastoral, good vs. evil stuff while most S&S stories I've read are mainly about urban anti-heroes.

I agree with you as well. I'm reading Fritz Leiber and Fafrhd and Mouse are definitely not altruistic.

Did I mention the game's back cover text? The text where the opening line is "You're no hero"?

See http://www.goodman-games.com/5070preview.html for the rest of the back cover text. But in short - I completely agree!

I'm glad you guys "get" the reasons behind that back cover blurb...

goodmangames wrote:The basic concept of "spell research" has evolved from "trial and error, lots of experimentation, and years of questing" to "go find a magic scroll and copy down a spell." No! Spell research should mean things blow up! Expensive materials are lost! Distant continents must be searched for rare ingredients! Covetous rival wizards must be bribed or exterminated! And THEN the wizard has to find an old hermit who knows how to contact a demon who remembers where a relic is buried which may hint at powers now forgotten!

I'm getting off on another tangent, but looping back to the point: "mystery" is not "throw in lots of crazy monsters" - it's about managing information flow to the players. Goblins and trolls can be quite mysterious if they look a little different, or if they're referred to constantly as "demons" by terrified villagers. There will be goblins, orcs, and trolls in the game - as well as plenty of human NPCs. It's up to the judge to manage the information flow to players properly, and that determines whether a goblin looks like a traditional goblin, or looks like something else. And it's that moment of "encountering the unknown" - or, put differently, the moment of "confirmation of whether information was accurate or not" - that makes fantasy fantastic. What is that blue humanoid? Is that what the villager meant by a "goblin"? Is that what the wizard meant by a "demon"? Or is the blue guy just a native from the next village in war paint??

Ok, this stuff sounds very cool. I hope the book will have lots of gm advice for how to do these kinds of things.

goodmangames wrote:"mystery" is not "throw in lots of crazy monsters" - it's about managing information flow to the players. Goblins and trolls can be quite mysterious if they look a little different, or if they're referred to constantly as "demons" by terrified villagers. . . . It's up to the judge to manage the information flow to players properly, and that determines whether a goblin looks like a traditional goblin, or looks like something else.

Joseph, that's the way I've played for years, I thought that was common. Just ask my players how much I reveal to them about the creatures they fight. It drives them crazy, but it keeps mystery in the game.

I like the way you are approaching this.

The Force is strong with you!

goodmangames wrote:"Unusual monsters" don't have to be big weird things with tentacles and an odd number of eyes. How about a small, scrawny humanoid with blue skin? Is that a goblin - or a Hyrkanian - or something else? There can still be goblins - but they need not look like a goblin.

To a villager who's never journeyed more than 10 miles from where he was born, everything is a "goblin." Or maybe a "demon." Regardless, that villager has no point of reference for "different kinds of humanoids" - in the same sense that medieval Europeans had no concept of the zebra or giraffe, and considered them mythical creatures. Part of "fantasy" is remembering what it's like to occupy world where books are scarce, there are no mechanical printing presses, and literacy itself is a rarity - much less libraries, a postal service, or any convenient methods of long-distance communication (such as a phone or even a telegram). When almost every piece of information is transported verbally, the "telephone game" applies to EVERYTHING. To the typical medieval adventurer, almost everything he knows beyond simple farming and basic professional knowledge is third, fourth, or fifth-hand. Imagine that - almost everything your character knows past his first-hand experience is learned from verbal sources, with no reliable way of confirming if the information is accurate or not. There is no written reference -- no encyclopedia or internet -- almost no definite knowledge -- and no source of reliable information! It's so easy to forget how easy information flow is in the modern era. The basic concept of "spell research" has evolved from "trial and error, lots of experimentation, and years of questing" to "go find a magic scroll and copy down a spell." No! Spell research should mean things blow up! Expensive materials are lost! Distant continents must be searched for rare ingredients! Covetous rival wizards must be bribed or exterminated! And THEN the wizard has to find an old hermit who knows how to contact a demon who remembers where a relic is buried which may hint at powers now forgotten!

I'm getting off on another tangent, but looping back to the point: "mystery" is not "throw in lots of crazy monsters" - it's about managing information flow to the players. Goblins and trolls can be quite mysterious if they look a little different, or if they're referred to constantly as "demons" by terrified villagers. There will be goblins, orcs, and trolls in the game - as well as plenty of human NPCs. It's up to the judge to manage the information flow to players properly, and that determines whether a goblin looks like a traditional goblin, or looks like something else. And it's that moment of "encountering the unknown" - or, put differently, the moment of "confirmation of whether information was accurate or not" - that makes fantasy fantastic. What is that blue humanoid? Is that what the villager meant by a "goblin"? Is that what the wizard meant by a "demon"? Or is the blue guy just a native from the next village in war paint??

Once again, insightful observations.

In my campaign, monsters are either unique or members of a small nest. They aren't members of species or part of the ecosystem. They are monsters: They don't fit. Seldom, very seldom a monster has a Lovecraftian appearance. Typically, they have a more "Greek mythology" appearance, in the sense of looking like amalgamations of various animals (a winged ape with yellow fur, a bipedal wolf with a turtle shell on its back, a leggless deer with a body shaped like a serpent, etc.). These monsters have powers unguessed at. They do not have names and are not classified within a system. Large humanoids tend to be indiscriminately referred to as "giants". Reptilian monsters tend to be referred to as "dragons". Etc.

In my campaign, encounters with monsters are exceptional. Most encounters are with men, and (secondarily) with dangerous fauna (bears, lions, wolves, etc.).

Geoffrey wrote:In my campaign, monsters are either unique or members of a small nest. They aren't members of species or part of the ecosystem. They are monsters: They don't fit.

I totally agree with this approach. to the local peasants, it's not "a" monster - it's "the" monster!

Will monsters generated with James Raggi's The Random Esoteric Creature Generator for Classic Fantasy Role Playing Games and their Modern Simulacra require much conversion to use with DCC RPG?

Geoffrey wrote:Will monsters generated with James Raggi's The Random Esoteric Creature Generator for Classic Fantasy Role Playing Games and their Modern Simulacra require much conversion to use with DCC RPG?

No, not much at all. I love that book. I also love the old Extraordinary Book of Names from Troll Lord Games. Two very handy RPG resources!

Jedi, you and I apparently have play styles that were separated at birth, or something! But I think that most gamers do not play the way you're describing your campaign.