tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post536307013012785446..comments2024-03-19T07:16:47.924-04:00Comments on GROGNARDIA: Distinctively D&DJames Maliszewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00341941102398271464noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-59609632888634679472011-09-03T16:32:42.434-04:002011-09-03T16:32:42.434-04:00This depends on the game world. Does your world h...This depends on the game world. Does your world have a bunch of common monsters as part of the background? Orcs, goblins, werewolves, vampires, etc?<br /><br />Does it make sense in context? I have a campaign set in a haunted vale with plenty of undead that make other kinds of undead and demons that infect and infest others making more similar monsters. <br /><br />My campaign has recurring monsters, special recurring monsters (elite evil priests for instance) and special monsters, (demons, evil critters that feed off death and dying etc). <br /><br />Other campaigns I have run have all been unique monsters and antagonist races that were less unique.<br /><br />Either way is possible with D&D less so with AD&D.Rainforest Gianthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05240761465708154282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-14465277282852907042011-09-02T07:36:32.008-04:002011-09-02T07:36:32.008-04:00I seem to be swimming against the grain here. A co...I seem to be swimming against the grain here. A couple of thoughts:<br />1. I don't play D&D or any of its clones so that I or my players can face the iconic monsters from myth alone (or even just those from LBB 2) - I like the more outre ones, at least in appropriate numbers and locations. I'm also not going Raggi here (no need for completely bizarre monsters each time), but I very much like having a large palette of monsters from which to choose when it comes to keying my adventures. Of course there are some that I never use and/or hate, but in general I have no problem picking and choosing from as large a range as possible. In this light, I'm not completely sure what James means by 'associations' attached to certain monsters. Clearly within a particular gaming group there may well be associations (a type can get tired or over-used, and hence may need to be retired), but, at least in my experience, no one associates certain monsters with AD&D versus some sort of base criterion of monstrosity (it's also true that my players are relative newbies with no way of associating monsters with particular editions or contexts). <br />2. I also have never had any problem with monsters as species (rather than solitaries), at least in the context of D&D. More than one medusa? fine! (But I respect the appearance chart in the MM). In keeping with my ideas about a broad palette, I'll use 'em all, and as often as necessary. If I want a 'special' or iconic monster, I'll create my own or amp up an existing monster.<br />3. My players like variety, and I like the fact that a) I can keep them guessing by employing a wide variety of the better monsters invented by smart people over the past 40 years, and b) I can and will tweak the stats and abilities of any monster, even a humble goblin, as I see fit and as makes sense in my game.<br />YMMV, clearlyRickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09581075774319858322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77186061944529187762011-09-02T06:09:57.496-04:002011-09-02T06:09:57.496-04:00@Charles Ferguson: That's fair to say, yes. I ...@Charles Ferguson: That's fair to say, yes. I won't try to argue with you about the way humanoids are generally used. I've used them that way myself, though nowadays I usually try not to. But I think that to replace humanoids with humans entirely means missing a lot of opportunities. <br />Even if your humanoid monsters aren't all that different to humans in actuality, the fact that they're alien gives them a certain feel and a certain amount of uncertainty that makes them better suited for a lot of roles. For bandits and cultists, I use humans. Subterranean civilisations, cannibalistic gnolls, and mysterious wandering lizard-people, I could theoretically all replace with humans, but I'd change what they were in the process, and end up with a different feel entirely.<br /><br />Also, as you mention, non-humans can be useful shorthand for different cultures as viewed by others. Dwarves are based on mediaeval stereotypes of Jews. You couldn't have a race of humans in a campaign that were universally gold-loving, taciturn craftsmen, because we all know too well that you can't categorise an entire group of people like that - it strains suspension of disbelief, besides the nasty implications. But since dwarves are a different species, it's okay for them all to be one big stereotype.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090296806321882601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-77404732562737235242011-09-02T04:55:34.157-04:002011-09-02T04:55:34.157-04:00Ed Dove said...
"Now I'm imagining them ...Ed Dove said...<br /><br />"Now I'm imagining them sounding like Barry White.<br /><br />Think Orgish ( as in death/gloom metal) being sung through an old analog synthesizer like a moog, and you'll get the picture.<br /><br />Fin.crowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03066821931343968827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-19622008037794829982011-09-02T02:43:19.390-04:002011-09-02T02:43:19.390-04:00@John: " A goblin is not a man. It does not n...@John: " A goblin is not a man. It does not necessarily want what men want."<br /><br />Well - maybe. I think the point here is that if you play standard D&D humanoids rhe way the published materials teach you to, they want exactly what men want. They're immediately recognizeable to us. True, they're caricatured but never unrecognizable so, and certainly no more than RL cultures have portrayed others. That's indisputably the role they've been cast in in traditional RPGs (ie as substitute humans).charles mark fergusonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13385121479729236749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-58305256552642456572011-09-02T02:31:05.270-04:002011-09-02T02:31:05.270-04:00@crowking and Ed Dove: get a blog or something alr...<b>@crowking and Ed Dove: get a blog or something already.</b><br /><br />I'm sorry for disrupting this discussion, but I couldn't just stand by and do nothing when somebody who didn't do anything wrong got attacked by somebody who thought they did.<br /><br />Hopefully we're done now.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-87437576157612718582011-09-02T02:23:42.974-04:002011-09-02T02:23:42.974-04:00"You can also reskin monsters. Say, instead o...<b><i>"You can also reskin monsters. Say, instead of a Beholder, it's a slorping ooze monster with multiple mouths and beautiful singing voices. Each voice causes a magical effect on whoever the voice sings to. Old and wise ones can combine the voices to make harmonies that do different magical effects. Call it a Dungeon Choir or something. Bam, new monster, but you basically just replaced the Beholder with it."</i>--1d30</b><br /><br />That's <b><i>not</i></b> saying <i>"that, instead of adding to or changing the monster as it's written, you should just make up a new monster".</i><br /><br />It's just explaining how it's <i>possible</i> to change the superficial details of a monster so much that it seems like a completely new monster even though it still works effectively the same way.<br /><br />That's all.<br /><br />So it's <i>not</i> a criticism of crowking (or anybody else) for how crowking (or anybody else) runs Beholders (or any other monsters).<br /><br />It's just an explanation of how people <i>can, if they want to,</i> run monsters so differently from the book that they seem like completely new monsters, using Beholders <i>as an example.</i><br /><br /><br /><b><i>"Also please realize that some players love that sort of standard D&D thing, maybe those who haven't played it much, to whom the tired old tropes are new."</i>--1d30</b><br /><br />That's <b><i>not</i></b> saying <i>"that, instead of adding to or changing the monster as it's written, you should just make up a new monster because there's people who like the standard old monsters just the way they are."</i><br /><br />It's just pointing out that, when playing with newer players, it's not <i>necessary</i> to add to or change monsters to make them new because <i>they're already new to those players.</i><br /><br />That's all.<br /><br />So it's <i>not</i> a criticism of crowking (or anybody else) for how crowking (or anybody else) runs Beholders (or any other monsters).<br /><br />It's just a reminder that people don't <i>need</i> to change monsters to make them new if they're playing with newer players to whom those monsters are <i>already new.</i><br /><br /><br /><b><i>"Beholders...know only their own language which is comprised of deep, guttural vocal tones, that to the unknowing ear, could be interpreted as singing of some sort."</i>--crowking</b><br /><br />Now I'm imagining them sounding like Barry White.<br /><br /><i>"Hey, Baby..."</i>https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43166327831457048812011-09-02T01:49:29.159-04:002011-09-02T01:49:29.159-04:00@crowking and Ed Dove: get a blog or something alr...@crowking and Ed Dove: get a blog or something already.Spawn of Endrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10431848914619887998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-43941077640253615712011-09-02T01:18:35.582-04:002011-09-02T01:18:35.582-04:00Well, 1d30 made a point--signaling out Beholders w...Well, 1d30 made a point--signaling out Beholders who can SING no less-- that instead of added or changing the monster as it's written, you should just make up a new monster because there's people who like the standard old monsters just the way they are. Including for me or whomever, to "please realize" that as well. There's no other way to respond to that other then to make a point that I think he was wrong.<br /><br />Anyway, if that wasn't you or 1d30 attention, fine and I'll drop it. But it didn't read that way on my end .<br /><br />Note: no, Beholders don't sing like Frank Sinatra or Lady Gaga. In my campaign they know only their own language which is comprised of deep, guttural vocal tones, that to the unknowing ear, could be interpreted as singing of some sort. My personal two cents to D&D's most oddball monster.crowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03066821931343968827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-62199167221774670092011-09-01T23:40:48.121-04:002011-09-01T23:40:48.121-04:00@crowking
If I'm understanding you correctly,...<b>@crowking</b><br /><br />If I'm understanding you correctly, you seem to think, for some reason that I <i>don't</i> understand, that 1d30 & I are somehow against the retro/old-school way of RPGing.<br /><br />Is that correct?<br /><br />And, if so, <i>why</i> do you think that?<br /><br />And, if not, what <i>do</i> you mean?<br /><br />I ask because I know that <i>I'm</i> not against the retro/old-school way of RPGing.<br /><br />And I don't know what I said that might've given you the impression that I am.<br /><br />And 1d30 certainly didn't say anything that gave <i>me</i> the impression that <i>s/he's</i> against the retro/old-school way of RPGing either.<br /><br />So I don't understand why you're wigging out.<br /><br />Neither of us said anything against anybody doing whatever they want with their games.<br /><br />And neither of us said anything even suggesting that we think either our own ways of RPGing, or conformity to any books, or anything from any newer editions would be better than any retro/old-school ways of RPGing either.<br /><br />1d30 just said that the old standard monsters could work just as well for people who they're as new to now as they were to us when we first started playing.<br /><br />That's all.<br /><br />Why did you think that was some sort of criticism of the retro/old-school way of RPGing?<br /><br />And I just explained how what 1d30 really said not only wasn't any sort of criticism of the retro/old-school way of RPGing, but actually pointed out an aspect of the retro/old-school way of gaming that newer RPGers might find even more appealing than we experienced RPGers do.<br /><br />How did you read that as saying that adding stuff from newer editions could make retro/old-school RPGs more appealing to newer RPGers?<br /><br />It not only doesn't mean that -- it's actually nearly the opposite of that.<br /><br />How carefully do you read what people write before you respond to it?<br /><br />I ask because you seem to think that 1d30 & I have said things that not only aren't what we really said, but are about the opposite of what we actually said.<br /><br />So, I hope, if you go back and read more carefully, you'll see that the things you've been responding to in what you thought 1d30 & I wrote aren't actually there at all.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-29336486030497445962011-09-01T23:31:41.686-04:002011-09-01T23:31:41.686-04:00Hi James,
When you say: "Well, the game rules...Hi James,<br />When you say: "Well, the game rules I'm using may be D&D but I don't think of the world I'm describing through them to be a "D&D world.", is this, essentially, a reference to branding, and so your decisions to include certain monsters but not others a rejection of the Official D&D Brand? I.e., the early 80s Brand as the albatross about the game's neck thereafter.<br /><br />Raggi's approach, which I don't completely disagree with but also haven't come to terms with, seems to be another way to "unbrand" a fantasy RPG from D&D, though I'd suggest it's in the same spirit at the end of the day. <br /><br />If so it seems that a key aim of the project of the early version proponents is de-merchandizing D&D, rather than just going back to lighter rules, simpler times, fast play, and the usual canards. De-merchandizing is a more interesting goal than lightening rules.Spawn of Endrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10431848914619887998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-71168744761591204122011-09-01T22:52:58.505-04:002011-09-01T22:52:58.505-04:00This is a wonderfully fascinating approach to the ...This is a wonderfully fascinating approach to the question of or more appropriately the decisions regarding monsters.<br /><br />When I am running D&D (a rare occaision over the past 20 years but not an unknown one) I tend to use monsters that are strictly D&D is as either the unique freaks of nature/supernature/magic that they are as opposed to creatures from myth and folklore just because I am playing D&D.<br /><br />More clearly, I use Umber Hulks periodically in D&D because there is no where else an Umber Hulk would appear. If I were running Ars Magica, no Umber Hulks. If I were running Pendragon, no Umber Hulks.<br /><br />Now, I use folkloric creatures as often as I can, preferring them to Gygax's wacky menagerie of beasties but, to put it one way, "It wouldn't be D&D without a Rust Monster or a Beholder."<br /><br />As is often the case, I disagree with Raggi on the use of Humanoid monsters. A disciple of old school Star Trek, I have learned it is sometimes very effective to show humanity it's faults in the guise of aliens or monsters.<br /><br />As such, Orcs are extremely rare in my universe, to the point of some of my players asking me if there were Orcs on the campaign world.<br /><br />First, Orc is a name give to a particularly tall (Human height or slightly taller) goblin. In some regions these same creatures (albiet with different skin tones) are known as HobGoblins. Second, the Orc has been hunted to extinction as Humanity expanded into the less pleasant regions of wilderness. Drained swamps, irrigated desert regions and the like have robbed the Orcs of their homes.<br /><br />Currently, the largest Orc population is a small island just off the Southern coast of the North Western continent. They were moved there in a 'Native American Reservation' allegory story I did many year ago. There are no more than 150 Orcs on the island. Sages believe there are less than 300 Orcs world wide.<br /><br />Yes, I could have told that story with Humans but the effect of using Orcs, creatures D&D PCs normally view as evil without thinking about it was very helpful in giving the story weight.Adam Dicksteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04840144928096089178noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-59140294601509631342011-09-01T22:47:02.900-04:002011-09-01T22:47:02.900-04:00John: I think that the point is that the role play...John: I think that the point is that the role played by humanoids can be filled by humans in every case. Certainly, alien creatures are not humans, but they fill general roles in the games we play. Goblins play the role of "bandits", generally, which role can be played by humans. They may also play the role of "gypsy merchants", which role can be played by humans, or "barbarian horde", which role can be played by humans, and so on.faoladhhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03691952430041394614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-19246623466235270042011-09-01T22:26:06.388-04:002011-09-01T22:26:06.388-04:00D said: "I think I prefer the 'every mons...D said: "I think I prefer the 'every monster is unique' approach. That is, after all, the way it worked in legends and mythology."<br /><br />Elves? Dwarves? Leprechauns? Titans? Centaurs? Cyclopes? Nymphs? Harpies? Sirens? Satyrs? Hippocampi? Hecatoncheires? The Seelie Court? The Sidhe? The Fir Bolg?Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-4622858082329558912011-09-01T22:07:41.159-04:002011-09-01T22:07:41.159-04:00Ed Dove said...
"it's a reason why retro...Ed Dove said...<br /><br />"it's a reason why retro/old-school RPGs might have even more appeal to newer players than they do to us experienced ones. "<br /><br />Am I am I telling you how to run your game or anyone else ? No, but Mr.1d30 and yourself obviously thinks so and that's where you crossed the line. Retro gaming and the philosophy is not about conforming to what the rule books say but to change them any way you want--or not too!<br /><br />More appeal you say? Like maybe adding feats and action points to Labyrinth Lord or even Swords& Wizardy? LOL! Your really are posting in the wrong blog DUDE.crowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03066821931343968827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-1415004682286948112011-09-01T22:07:27.223-04:002011-09-01T22:07:27.223-04:00I think James' post makes lots and lots of sen...I think James' post makes lots and lots of sense and I actually agree with it fully. There's a certain slice of monsters which are really "generic", and that list is pretty much identical to what's in OD&D Vol-2. After that point, expansion of the game required "inventing new monsters", and thus you get stuff that's D&D-only (and branded IP), and does not have the history of myth and literature to back it up. (Some of which can be immensely cool, but still -- harder to pull off in general.)<br /><br />Using Vol-2 as your "core" is a great choice (more so than the MM), and it's one of the exact things that excited me so much when I saw the LBBs for the first time at a very late date (i.e., about 5 years ago).Deltahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00705402326320853684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-49884216791297519672011-09-01T21:43:41.722-04:002011-09-01T21:43:41.722-04:00@ James: Hmmmmm...
You know, I've often said ...@ James: Hmmmmm...<br /><br />You know, I've often said (and written) that AD&D feels like Gygax's house ruled campaign...so much so that I've come to treat it as such. Recently, I've begun writing/designing my own "fantasy heartbreaker" (i.e. a fantasy RPG that knocks off D&D with certain choice corrections...not necessarily for publication) and the monster chapter is one I've pretty much sorted out. AND I found most of the monsters I chose to include were "non-D&D specific" simply because I, too, wanted a more "generic" feel based on mythology and literature.<br /><br />That means most of my monsters are simply from Volume 2 of the LBBs, with a few B/X animals...a slim list, but ample for what I want. At the time, I wasn't thinking in terms of "EGG is too distinct" but that's exactly what it was!JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08532311924539491087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-58298529348073771692011-09-01T21:17:07.582-04:002011-09-01T21:17:07.582-04:00I think a combo of monster as races and then some ...I think a combo of monster as races and then some unique or at least very rare monsters now and again is the way to go. Just like "weird fantasy," unique monsters is not a new concept. Sometimes I have created my own weirdo beasties that are unique to the world, and sometimes I use common ones. When I want one that is just very rare, I pop open a monster book I don't use often, such as MM2 or FF. <br /><br />Having unique monsters for lots of encounters in itself can get old. Want a campaign to stay fresh? Then add a little from column A, and a little from column B.Kevin Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122665488285424578noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-10563496364802519102011-09-01T20:54:20.211-04:002011-09-01T20:54:20.211-04:00Well said Ed Dove, I concur wholeheartedly.Well said Ed Dove, I concur wholeheartedly.Chris#6https://www.blogger.com/profile/08305925037284931371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-63766202670199361552011-09-01T20:18:41.615-04:002011-09-01T20:18:41.615-04:00Hey, crowking... Why you ragging on 1d30 like that...Hey, crowking... Why you ragging on 1d30 like that? All s/he said was that the old standard D&D monsters might work just fine for newer players because they're new to them. And that's true. And it has nothing to do with edition preferences. And it's certainly not any sort of affront to devotees of retro/old-school RPGs either. In fact, it's a reason why retro/old-school RPGs might have even more appeal to newer players than they do to us experienced ones. So lay off, dude.https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-69871117871929498062011-09-01T20:00:09.397-04:002011-09-01T20:00:09.397-04:00Ed Dove said...
"For some reason, I immediate...Ed Dove said...<br />"For some reason, I immediately imagined a Beholder awkwardly singing "Her name is Rio and she dances on the sand..."<br /><br />It was just one of those fun little spontaneous moments that happen in the game. I don't know what the official Canon is with them( or really care) but I always imagined them as the type of "weirdo" monster Basil Wolverton or Ed Big Daddy Roth would of created and somehow left their "weirdworld" by some way or another. At least that's my take on em'.<br /><br />1d30 said...<br />"Also please realize that some players love that sort of standard D&D thing, maybe those who haven't played it much, to whom the tired old tropes are new."<br /><br />If you want to keep monsters exactly the same way as they are in the DMG, be my guess. But if a GM decides that the orcs in his campaign all have big floppy bunny ears and all dragons exhale clouds of flaming honeybee's then he has that right because it's HIS world. If you don't like it, tell him. I'm sure he can point you in the direction towards the local 4E games playing close by.<br /><br />Really now, you should know better. Especially if your posting on a blog devoted to retro/old school style RPG's. Sheesh..crowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03066821931343968827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-80499724410114378942011-09-01T19:56:04.834-04:002011-09-01T19:56:04.834-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.crowkinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03066821931343968827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-58094553335435527412011-09-01T19:49:36.666-04:002011-09-01T19:49:36.666-04:00(I didn't mean to refer to bandits specificall...(I didn't mean to refer to bandits specifically. If I meet a ravening cultist of Qom, I may not share her devotion to the Mother of Eyes but we'll still have something to talk about in between her trying to kill me. We eat the same food, feel the same fears, live in the same world. If I meet a goblin, I have no idea what's going on behind its eyes.)Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090296806321882601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-49824330991913347372011-09-01T19:40:39.797-04:002011-09-01T19:40:39.797-04:00I absolutely disagree that all humanoid monsters c...I absolutely disagree that all humanoid monsters can be effectively replaced by humans. If you're just casting your humanoids in the role of bandits, maybe - that's a role that doesn't need a monster. Bandits are still men. They might be mean or vicious or crazy, but they're fundamentally the same as we are, and we know it. A goblin is not a man. It does not necessarily want what men want.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07090296806321882601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7487871339000666216.post-6314039413937474852011-09-01T19:21:49.450-04:002011-09-01T19:21:49.450-04:00Osskorrei said...Two books which add to Raggi'...<b>Osskorrei said...</b>Two books which add to Raggi's Weird Fantasy approach and the historical (and pre-Modernity) nature of monsters are <b><i>"On Monsters: An Unnatural History of Our Worst Fears"</i></b> by Stephen T. Asma and <b><i>"Monsters: Evil Beings, Mythical Beasts, and All Manner of Imaginary Terrors"</i></b> by David D. Gilmore.<br /><br />Thanks! I just added them to my Amazon wish list!https://www.blogger.com/profile/14398295844409607075noreply@blogger.com