Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Retrospective: Fiend Folio

Resting on a shelf atop my desk are, among other things, my Advanced Dungeons & Dragons hardcover book collection. Most of them are about forty years old or close to it and it's obvious they've all been well loved. Their covers are faded and scuffed at the corners and their interiors reveal their age through a collection of small stains scattered across their once-white pages. I say "most," because there's one volume that looks almost brand new, despite the march of the years: the "tome of creatures malevolent and benign," the Fiend Folio. There's a reason the book appears nearly pristine and it has nothing to do with the high quality for which TSR's first edition AD&D books were made: I didn't think much of the Fiend Folio and, therefore, almost never used it.

I realize that, in some quarters, that's a controversial, verging on blasphemous, opinion. There is a contingent of old schoolers for whom the Fiend Folio is the best monster book published for AD&D – alas, not for me. I owned it more out of completeness than any enthusiasm. I adored the Monster Manual, which was my first AD&D hardcover, ordered at a Sears catalog store with money given to me for Christmas by my grandmother. I still cherish that book to this day, a fond possession from my youth, portions of whose text I can quote from memory, so often did I read it in those early days. The Fiend Folio, though? I've barely cracked the spine.

I used to think, when the matter of the Fiend Folio came up in conversation, that my dislike of it was based on a failure to appreciate the book's idiosyncratic Britishness. The tome quite clearly evinces a different sensibility from its rather staid American predecessor, most notably in its illustrations. Though the volume contains artwork by TSR stalwarts like Jeff Dee, Erol Otus, and Dave Sutherland, their familiar visuals were buried beneath an avalanche of pieces by Alan Hunter, Albie Fiore, Russ Nicholson, and others, none of which looked much like what I'd seen in the Monster Manual. There was a gloomy, gritty quality to the illustrations that shocked and repulsed me at the time. This wasn't what Dungeons & Dragons was supposed to look like and I found it hard to accept. 

But it wasn't (just) the artwork that turned me against the Fiend Folio; it was the content. Compared to the Monster Manual, most of the creatures in this book are, at best, weird and strangely specific and, at worst, downright silly. Again, I recognize that many see this as precisely why they like the Fiend Folio. I can see that, but, for me, monsters like the Enveloper, the Flail Snail, and the Gorbel, to cite a few obvious ones, are simply goofy and I can't think of any circumstance in which I'd use them. And they're not alone. I could easily go through the book, page after page, and point out all the monsters that strike me as too ridiculous (lava children), overpowered (death knight), or bizarre (trilloch) for my tastes. The whole thing has a rough, unfinished, and fannish quality to it – filled with the kinds of monsters overly enthusiastic but not very creative kids would come up with for their homebrew adventures. I realize that's an unduly harsh judgment, but it's how I felt at the time.

In the years since, my opinion of the Fiend Folio has softened a bit, in particular with regards to the art, some of which I now consider among the best ever done for AD&D. Russ Nicholson, for example, is now a favorite of mine and I am somewhat embarrassed to admit that I once didn't much care for his illustrations. Likewise, I've come to accept that there's a place for some of these monsters, if only as occasional palate cleansers. However, except for those that had appeared previously in published adventures (like the drow or the bullywugs), there aren't any that I feel fill an obvious gap in AD&D's roster of monstrous opponents. The Fiend Folio should, therefore, be treated as a book of options to be used with care rather than as a regular supplement to the Monster Manual (or Monster Manual II, which I consider a much better book, despite its flaws). Viewed in this fashion, I think of it much more kindly.

But before I forget, it must be said: the githyanki are overrated. Ugh.

34 comments:

  1. ...and the slaad are grossly underrated. I am afraid that I am one of those Fiend Folio fan boys. One reason that I love the weirdness so much is that it pushes the game in a decidedly science fantasy direction. It is also deliciously fun to try and find ways of implementing Gygaxian naturalism on all these bizarre creatures. My favorite realization was that the flumph (which I noticed you kindly left off your list of obviously weird creatures) can be understood to be the hunting hounds of the blink dogs in their eternal hunt for displacer beasts. The delicious irony of dogs using these weird creatures as hunting hounds adds a layer of the fantastic on the MM1's naturalism that, ironically, makes the implied world more real than weird.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a very interesting take on things I wouldn't have considered.

      Delete
  2. Nitpick: bullywugs premiered in Fiend Folio and had not previously appeared in a module.

    Other than that, I agree that at least half of the monsters in the book weren’t ready for prime time. It would’ve been fine as a third party product along the lines of Chaosium’s All the World’s Monsters series but feels like an odd man out as part of the Official AD&D Canon.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are correct about the bullywugs and I should have remembered that, since (I believe) Dwellers of the Forbidden City explicitly states that they, along with several other monsters, come from the FF.

      Delete
  3. I enjoy the art and text of the FF, but we all appreciate different things. Regarding the fannish quality of its contents, that's because a lot of those creatures originally submitted by fans and appeared in a regular feature in White Dwarf called the Fiend Factory (apologies if you already knew this).

    ReplyDelete
  4. For me, the Fiend Folio is indispensable for an AD&D campaign. My favorite versions of D&D are as follows (in publication order):

    1. OD&D, consisting of the 1974 rules, Supplement I: GREYHAWK, and the Monster Manual. I think of it as "1977 D&D".

    2. AD&D, consisting of the Monster Manual, Fiend Folio, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. I think of it as "1979 D&D" (remembering that the Fiend Folio was ready to publish in 1979).

    3. Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D. I think of it as "sit down and play D&D".

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've had a similar reaction to the book over the years. Most of the monsters in it just feel off compared to standard D&D monsters. There are some that I like, but there are many I don't think I would ever use. Granted, there are some creatures in the MM that I can't imagine using either, but there are a large number in the FF. But like you, I've come to appreciate the book more than I used to, and can consider how I might use some monsters I probably wouldn't have before.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Funny enough, the FF has been much on my mind lately as I run my kids through the old UK2 and UK3 modules, both of which make AMPLE use of the Folio. My own copy of FF is in near-pristine condition compared to my other AD&D books, mainly because it was one I only rarely used/references “back in the day.”

    Now...well, besides the artwork (that I’ve also grown to appreciate over the years), I find a lot of monsters to be fairly superfluous. What is an xvart except a blue-skinned goblin? What is an ogrillon except a strong orc that likes to punch people? What is a flind but a smart gnoll with a fancy weapon?

    In running UK2 I’ve simply cut most of the FF monsters or realigned them for traditional MM goes with strange abilities. Some critters (like deathknights and yellow musk creepers) *are* pretty cool, but they shouldn’t be nearly as prolific (IMO) as the “standard” D&D monsters.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I love the Fiend Folio but that should be no surprise. It's part of the British Old School for me, and there's a direct line from it, through Fighting Fantasy to HeroQuest and Warhammer, even if it is the weird American-influenced cousin. ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The British Old School is something for which I have not quite developed a proper appreciation. I really should try to rectify that.

      Delete
    2. The original "Dragon Warriors" books immediately situate you in a time and place. Admittedly for me, that's equal parts Mythic Britain and a circa-1994 Batemans Bay book exchange (where I discovered them on holidays), but they're evocative nonetheless!

      Delete
  8. I always appreciated the art of the FF but yes, the monsters were a mixed bag, mostly...bonkers.
    I mean that both in a good and a bad way. One of the things that confer D&D its charm, imho, is the self-aware absurdity of it all, the humor (and that was perfectly captured in Wormy).
    I actually prefer the githzerai to the githyanki, but probably my favorite non-MMI humanoid monsters are the Derro.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Monster Manual was an amalgamation of thousands of years of myths put to paper. Everything (including the MMII) later felt a bit odder and more forced because they had not survived the crucible of time. We had no preconceptions.

    Now, 40 years later, the odd has become a bit more familiar, and it's easier to see the merits of the FF and MMII.

    The grittier FF art was off-putting to me too, back then. Like you, I appreciate it more now.

    Nice article.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The weirdness/silliness of the FF was my initial reaction too. The "oddly specific" nature of some entries didn't throw me off as much as they all seemed like great ideas for adventure/encounter hooks, but I did realize I probably was going to use most of these much. Many of these seemed like "curveballs" or one-trick ponies to throw off the PCs.
    That said there are some classic monsters in the FF. Drow, Kuo-Toa, Slaad, Death Knights, Skeleton Warriors, Bullywugs, Kenku, Githzerai & Githyanki, and many others became standards in both published adventures and my home campaign over the years.
    Overall my problem with the FF isn't that it doesn't have high quality usable monsters, its that there are too many low quality unusable monsters and using the updated random monster tables provided will throw that junk into your adventures unless you want to fudge things. As a result, I never used those updated tables from the FF or MMII.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I had similar feeling about the FF, however, they are also coloured by my memories of some awesome games DM'd by my older brother way bitd. We will never forget fighting a Grell or the Eye of Fear and Flame for the first time. And is there anything really more evil than a Son of Kyuss?
    So, while many are superfluous, as JB says, it does have monsters in there that will always creep their way into my games.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Well I remember at least four encounters with FF monsters: being teleported by a Crypt Thing, fighting a bunch of Sons of Kyuss, fleeing from some Skeleton warriors and being mugged by Dark Creepers.
    You'll probably be surprised to hear that being mugged by Dark Creepers was the scariest, after being teleported by the Crypt Thing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Githyanki elbows confused me, and are still the object of ridicule on the internet today.

    ReplyDelete
  14. gritiness was always my game - 1st manual i ever got

    ReplyDelete
  15. There were a few interesting creatures, but most I thought were not that good. Also, it seemed a good number attacked elves on sight. Cannot remember if I ever purchased it or a friend did.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some of the art kept me at arms length even with fairly basic monsters. The hook horrors and dire corbys just don’t look cool. Goofy really with smiles and all. But more modern artistic depictions (of the two mentioned there is a Drizzt graphic novel which makes them outstanding...terrifying) have turned me around.

    It’s interesting how the art can make or break an otherwise encounter worthy creature.

    I really hate the githyanki art, but again more modern renderings look quite cool.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I had another issue with the Fiend Folio - coming into AD&D at 1E orange-spine, the FF was nowhere to be found. Yet supplements and adventures would keep referring me back to the FF, usually not giving anywhere near enough information to run such monsters without it. Quite frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks for putting into words things I've felt about the Fiend Folio for years. I don't quite dislike it that much, it ranks near the bottom of all the hardcover books. It has both some of the best and some of the worst creatures and art in all of AD&D.

    It was my first AD&D book (my mom had no idea what she was getting), and I thought it was really weird. MM2 ranks as one of my faves.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Fiend Factory, from which the Fiend Folio was mostly drawn, continued the much hallowed UK fanzine tradition of publishing new monsters to trip up experienced adventurers that already knew how to defeat the established ones. They were pretty much all unique dungeon surprises, and generally expected to be one-off encounters and never to be seen again.

    There is always a problem of how many monsters is enough in a game. And the answer is invariably either a few well developed ones or an unmeasurable plethora of strangeness (usually aided either by insane magic users either summoning strange creatures from distant planes or creating chimera in their labs) or some sort of portals or cosmic level campaign where you can meet this weirdness.

    On the gripping hand having each and every monster be unique is also a valid strategy, especially for a sword & sandals game. One pegasus, one (or rather three) medusae, one storm giant (his name is Edgar btw), etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have not seen that Niven reference ever used before! :)

      Delete
  20. I was a huge fan of the FF, and largely use it as my "real monsters" mix; there's Humans and a few common creatures in the world, and then all other encounters are with weird horrific things you've never heard of.

    My absolute favorite monster ever is the "Eye of Fear and Flame".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It occurred to me, the closest modern thing to the FF, and how useful and insane it is, was Veins of the Earth. Those scratchy illos of nonsense—but also a kind of mad sense—horrors down in the absolute dark.

      The OSR is mostly recycled late-'80s AD&D with B/X mechanics instead, with the serial numbers filed off, but maybe 10-20% taps back into that old vibe of "we make this stuff up, we can make up ANYTHING."

      Delete
  21. My most disappointing AD&D purchase, and possibly most disappointing RPG purchase ever. I have vivid memories of it. When I saw it on the bookstore shelf behind the cashier, I flipped out at the blue color and cover art of the book (I thought it was some kind of Undead). When I got home, I dug into my savings from splitting and stacking wood for the several weeks previous as we readied for Fall/Winter cold.

    The next day I was at the bookstore again (it was close to my School, and I walked to School) When I got it home and gave it a real flip-through, I was livid. The art and the silliness totally rubbed me the wrong way. I was crushed having spent the $12 plus tax having worked so hard for that money.

    My opinion today has not changed much. There is some good art in the back by my fave TSR artists. I always liked Russ N (Fighting Fantasy), however I felt/feel his work is out of place for AD&D at the time, which was more of the superheroic style of Willingham, Dee, Roslof. Russ' art was more on the grim fairy tale side of things. A fine style, just too weird of a contrast compared to how AD&D was being presented in all the other products of that 1980-1982 period.

    Bottom line: I had to sell off my original RQ, AD&D and OD&D collections circa 2005 due to a layoff. Over the years I have replaced all my AD&D hardcovers, barring the Fiend Folio.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This was the first AD&D book I owned. The cover alone, glimpsed at the house of the boys who taught me AD&D (which I tried to run using Basic D&D) is such a vivid memory of my first days of gaming. It's still my favorite, and posts about how it's great and how it's overrated are always fun to read.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I didn't dislike the Fiend Folio. I disliked the Monster Manual 2 though, beyond the Aboleth I don't think I used a single beast.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Agreed on all counts (and I'm British, so it's not just about an appreciation of British idiosyncracy). As much as I love Russ Nicholson, I feel much of his art in the FF is his weakest work. (Though that grell is amazing.)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Personally I enjoy the Fiend Folio, yes it's a weird grab bag of monsters, but what else are you going to do when the well of common mythology has been mined so thoroughly? I don't have any problems with the artwork, it has the slightly cartoon black and white vibe that a lot of early D&D stuff had, it might be a bit different stylisticslky, but—as a fan of Fighting Fantasy, which it reminds me of—I'm fine with that.

    I can't claim to use the monster from Fiend Folio with any great regularity, but I view the monsters in Fiend Folio as things you throwcin every now and again to spice up a game.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I generally enjoyed White Dwarf's monster column and often got some use of the monsters, but I remember being disappointed in the FIEND FOLIO itself. A few monsters were nice to have, but the biggest issue was that the Monster Manual contained a few extremely atmospheric pieces of B&W D&D art - the wyvern flying over the forest, for example, or the lurking giant spider. No illustrations in the Fiend Folio evoked that same sense of wonder and the style of most of the pictures, while somewhat interesting, was very different from the very good art we'd previous seen in the DMG, and Deities & Demigods, or even from the style used in White Dwarf magazine. The Fiend Folio did have a striking and colorful cover, though.

    I think the other main problem was the "tin ear" that the editor had for made-up monster names. Some are fine, but something like "Protein Polymorph" belongs in Gamma World, not a medieval fantasy game, and there were too many random syllable names as well. In addition to the silly season creatures (Flail Snail, etc.) I hated the boring creatures that seemed to lack all interest or mythic resonance, such as the Frost Man, essentially just barbarian who radiates cold, with no real background or anything.

    The book certainly wasn't terrible - there were a number of pretty cool critters in it - but there was a sense that it had been packed with "filler" that I hadn't got of most other TSR hardbacks. It was sort of the Blackmoor of the AD&D line, and at least Blackmoor had a certain manic charm to it.



    Another big part was naming. Fiend Folio's largely made up creatures often had bad (Flail Snail) or unpronounceable


    ReplyDelete
  27. I loved and used the gith a lot in my campaigns.

    ReplyDelete