TheRPGSite

How often do you use the monsters or adversaries from your system of choice? How many do you create on you're own from scratch? What's the percentage? I know for me no matter what system im using the bad guys provided just rarely seem to fit the setting without major changes and fairly frequently won't fit at all. I'd say I use provided adversaries maybe 10 or 20% of the time, the rest are designed from scratch.

I quit using published monsters years and years ago. Too many players have read the books and all the mystery is gone. It's easy to tweak an orc or dragon to make it different from the routine and keep things interesting. Elves don't have to be ripped out of Tolkien. The best monsters are often other people.

Very much system and game dependent. Rarely do I hew to the games descriptive and personality descriptors, but the mechanics it is probably half-and-half.

I usually use the monsters as statted. Sometimes as written too. Unless the writing somehow contradicts whats been established in other books for the game. And sometimes you just have no choice but to ignore an entries background and come up with something yourself.

Example: I used the creatures and aliens from star Frontiers pretty much exactly as is. Occasionally tinkering a unique creature using the rules given for that. But not tweaking the established creatures unless its something of Sathar design as they are known for creating variants. And on uncharted worlds Ive had to work out stuff as I go. Often just renaming an existing creature.

In D&D, especially BX I tend to leave the creatures stats as is. Personality tends to be on a case by case basis as in BX about nothing is flat out evil for the entire species. So you might run into friendly red dragons, not so friendly gnomes, or whatever. changing weapon and armour loadouts for those that use them is useful for making the leaders and guards for example stand out and its part of the rules even.

Whereas in Tunnels & Trolls or Gurps you pretty much have to create monsters yourself. They give a few examples. But really you are expected to DIY alot of stuff.

I was going to say I mostly use as-is, but I guess I mostly use NPCs and mostly make my own stat blocks for them. For monsters I either use as-is or tweak, eg for 5e I changed fire beetles to make them tougher, more like a BX fire beetle. I tend to use OSR adventures in 5e so often need new stats. Running Valley of the Red Apes on Wednesday I took the 3hd 19 hp 5e Ape, then to make a Red Ape raised it to 5 hd 32 hp and STR 18, d8+4 damage and Rend if both paws hit for another 2d8+4. The 2 high level barbarian PCs hacked through a bunch of them no bother. :D

One definite advantage is instilling some uncertainty about the world in the hearts of your players. When playing a single system for a long time and utilizing the provided critters it can ruin the sense of adventure. When they encounter a big green lizard thing in a cave and have no idea of its actual capabilities but have to rely on their character's knowledge or beast lore rolls or whatever it takes on a very different feel. Making all your own stuff takes time and effort but I think its worth it in the end.

When running monsters from the book I tend to run them by the book. This works well with my current group of players who haven't read the book. I don't need to put the time and energy into designing lots of new and unique monsters.

Back in the day every one of us had practically memorized all the books, so new and unique monsters were definitely a thing. There was a popular suggestion in GM advice at the time to describe the monster rather than naming it, but even that only work for so long. Besides how many ways can you describe a giant floating ball with a big mouthful of teeth and a bunch of little eyes on stalks?

Making new monsters is one of my favourite parts of playing Gamma World and the like. Makes the players have to think when they have no idea at all what the monster can do.

The great thing about home rolled monsters is that it stops the arguments of "but, the Book says..." dead in their tracks. Yes, orcs don't use Ice magic, but these are not orcs...

Monsters, rarely.  Animals, much more often.  That being said, my setting has a number of non-standard beasts, which of course I had to stat out.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1010622When running monsters from the book I tend to run them by the book. This works well with my current group of players who haven't read the book. I don't need to put the time and energy into designing lots of new and unique monsters.

Back in the day every one of us had practically memorized all the books, so new and unique monsters were definitely a thing. There was a popular suggestion in GM advice at the time to describe the monster rather than naming it, but even that only work for so long. Besides how many ways can you describe a giant floating ball with a big mouthful of teeth and a bunch of little eyes on stalks?

Making new monsters is one of my favourite parts of playing Gamma World and the like. Makes the players have to think when they have no idea at all what the monster can do.

The great thing about home rolled monsters is that it stops the arguments of "but, the Book says..." dead in their tracks. Yes, orcs don't use Ice magic, but these are not orcs...

You are absolutely correct but Ill be a little cautious in agreeing with you as it may seem as though its an indirect reference to another thread I started recently. This thread has NOTHING to do with that other one, although now in retrospect I can see a correlation.

I was not intending reference to the other thread.

I agree with you that the book provided monsters often don't fit a GM invented setting. With the same applying to PC races. Cue arguments about "the Book says I can play a half-dragon half-demon Lesbian Stripper Ninja..."

It does draw some odd looks however, especially among young, new players. At a recent game in which I'm playing I mentioned that in my upcoming campaign mixed races dont exist. (no half anythings) Nor are there Demon people, Angel people or Dragon people. A couple of my fellow players balked stating that if your going to play D&D, you need to play D&D. One of the other more veteran players came to my defense and together we explained to these guys (fresh out of high school) the concept of setting and how the rules are simply a medium with which to experience it.

You could also show them the many official editions of D&D in which there are at least no Demon People, Angel People, or Dragon People. As for half-races, it was laways DM's prerogative what to leave in and what to leave out.

As long as there is consistency within the setting, custom monsters are part and parcel of GMing, IMO.

In my last three games, I've started using custom stat blocks--even when the monster is standard.  That is, I put the monster in a document in a format that I find useful, and do this for all of them even when I don't change it.   It accomplishes three things:  

A. Makes it easier for me to mix and match different monsters in the same encounter.
B. I'm more likely to change it if needed, since I've already done most of the work of entering the base stat block.  
C. Since I never open the monster books at the table, the players have no clues whatsoever what I'm using, except as the way I describe them.  

It's not that much work, since I tend to limit a given campaign to a relatively small set of creatures.  I only started doing this for reason A, but found the other two things were a nice side effect.  Well, that and also that I do not like the standard stat blocks in the games I am running.   Reason B is all in my head, and I'm sure other GMs would find better ways to accomplish the same thing, but it works for me.

I am down for using either one. The standard monsters save you time, and you can just tweak them here and there to fit.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010616One definite advantage is instilling some uncertainty about the world in the hearts of your players. When playing a single system for a long time and utilizing the provided critters it can ruin the sense of adventure.

When they encounter a big green lizard thing in a cave and have no idea of its actual capabilities but have to rely on their character's knowledge or beast lore rolls or whatever it takes on a very different feel. Making all your own stuff takes time and effort but I think its worth it in the end.

1: Or having everything uncertain can ruin the sense of adventure.

2: Or the players then have no sense of having learned anything or being able to call upon past experiences to help them in the current situation. This can break the players sense of connection if done poorly or too often.

X: All that said. Used sparingly or within a setting where this is bundled into the very premise then it works. Uncertainty is the norm.

Some examples would be.
Gamma World: where any given mutant, even from relatively stable races, could have powers unexected. You run into some Hoops. You know they can destroy metal on touch. But you have to be wary that some of them dont have mutations outside the norm.

Dragon Storm: EVERY encounter is to expect the unexpected. There are stable races. But due to the tox you NEVER know if that squirrel is a normal squirrel, or is about to breath fire. That little pixie might be normal, or what passes for normal for a pixie, or it night shoot out a long tongue and swallow you whole. Whereas alot of warpspawn its hard to tell what it was originally and no two are quite the same even with the same loadouts.

Also. Tweaking monsters can work when done by region. So you have say bog standard kobolds common most anywhere. But in this region here kobolds can become invisible in shadows. Or these kobolds in this forest live in the treetops instead of undergound. Giving them a regional feel. This isnt even getting into simple culture and personality tweaks. Dark elves living on the surface and not conquest happy sociopaths? Been done.

Its alot like adding spice to food. A little is fine. It might be a main ingredient even. But too much and you can ruin it.

Since I've been running Black Hack, every monster/adversary has been custom-made.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010549How often do you use the monsters or adversaries from your system of choice? How many do you create on you're own from scratch? What's the percentage? I know for me no matter what system im using the bad guys provided just rarely seem to fit the setting without major changes and fairly frequently won't fit at all. I'd say I use provided adversaries maybe 10 or 20% of the time, the rest are designed from scratch.

I fairly often create my own, or use variants of other monsters. It shakes things up and stops the players knowing everything about everything they meet.

I use both standard and custom opponents as appropriate. Groups of opponents will often be a mixture of both. Standard stats for troops, minions, mooks, or pawns more customized for lieutenants and minor leaders, and often unique for major leaders. That said, I find that most of my players don't read the books so they haven't read many or any stat blocs for opponents. Those that have often don't recall the details anyhow.

I tend to repurpose stats for some monsters.

In one D&D game recently, I had beastmen stand in for Orcs, and used Orc stats for them.

In an older edition, I had Orcs all be half demons, and all female Dwarves were Halfling stats and appearance, save for the hairy feet.

I gave an Ancient Dragon in 3.x Fighter levels and several Feats who absolutely wrecked house.

Most other games I've run were either Superhero, Star Wars or Cyberpunk, which as most people know, tend not to have generic monsters.

I use standard monsters all the time. Saying that because people know their stats its somehow boring is like saying that old-school PCs are boring because they all have the same abilities.  It's missing what it is that makes for uniqueness.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011660I use standard monsters all the time. Saying that because people know their stats its somehow boring is like saying that old-school PCs are boring because they all have the same abilities.  It's missing what it is that makes for uniqueness.

I never said boring, though someone else may have. I said there's no mystery if you know all the scores.  And old-school PCs don't all have the same abilities unless the players are incredibly uncreative and the ref is a lunkhead.

Almost all of my monsters are crafted or at least tweeked.  For me, creating opponents, antagonists, horrors and minions are just part of building a game's setting.  The major exception is when I play older D&D with jaded players, then the nostalgia of monster manual stat-quoting is part of the experience.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011660I use standard monsters all the time. Saying that because people know their stats its somehow boring is like saying that old-school PCs are boring because they all have the same abilities.  It's missing what it is that makes for uniqueness.

Old school characters

• Don't all have the same abilities since they aren't all the same level.
• Don't all have the same abilities even if they are the same level since they aren't all the same character class.
• Don't all have the same personality even if they are the same character class and level.
• Don't all have the same magic items.
• Don't all have the same weapons and armor. Even among OD&D fighters one might be a front line, plate armored fighter while another might be more of a skirmisher or want to be in chainmail so as to be able to outrun at least some monsters or at least outrun the guy in plate armor.

So what makes one of your standard monsters different from another standard monster of the same exact type?

Quote from: Bren;1011686Old school characters

• Don't all have the same abilities since they aren't all the same level.
• Don't all have the same abilities even if they are the same level since they aren't all the same character class.
• Don't all have the same personality even if they are the same character class and level.
• Don't all have the same magic items.
• Don't all have the same weapons and armor. Even among OD&D fighters one might be a front line, plate armored fighter while another might be more of a skirmisher or want to be in chainmail so as to be able to outrun at least some monsters or at least outrun the guy in plate armor.

You and I know that, but a lot of critics of old-school D&D don't know that.

QuoteSo what makes one of your standard monsters different from another standard monster of the same exact type?

Any number of things: size, hit dice, tactics, personality, items and resources.  So, not that different from your list.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1011660I use standard monsters all the time. Saying that because people know their stats its somehow boring is like saying that old-school PCs are boring because they all have the same abilities.  It's missing what it is that makes for uniqueness.

I mostly use standards too, but the 'leaders' I make as if they were player characters with some or much detail.
Even the standard monsters like kobolds get their own 'style'(culture?) depending on their location and resources they can have. Examples would be having good iron armor and weapons if living in an iron mine (and perhaps fire elementalists, basic marksmen) being slower but stronger, while living near a tainted river and dragon graveyard (think elephants) the kobolds would use bone gear and have some poison, necromancy focused shamans. (focusing more on fluid hit&run tactics while the mine ones would be more defense/trap oriented)

I don't even go into if their location changed their traditions or what they worship. It doesn't change much as per standard monster stats like strength or HP, but gives such groups a lot of 'localized RP flavor', a bit making them more lifelike tribes, clans and such.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1012616You and I know that, but a lot of critics of old-school D&D don't know that.



Any number of things: size, hit dice, tactics, personality, items and resources.  So, not that different from your list.

Size, hit dice, and items are the same for standard monsters of the same type in older editions of D&D. They are all represented by teh numbers in the standard stat block.

Personality, tactics, and resources can vary between individuals. But a standard Orc is a standard orc. EG: AC: 6, HD: 1, Attacks: 1, Damage: 1-6, Move: 120'

Quote from: DavetheLost;1012643Size, hit dice, and items are the same for standard monsters of the same type in older editions of D&D. They are all represented by teh numbers in the standard stat block.

Personality, tactics, and resources can vary between individuals. But a standard Orc is a standard orc. EG: AC: 6, HD: 1, Attacks: 1, Damage: 1-6, Move: 120'

Only if the GM wants his standard orc to have those stats. They are the author's interpretation of an orc. Not necessarily the GM's.

I never thought things like culture, resources, tactics, clothes or armor, weaponry is part of what 'standard' means. Would love to see how someone attempts to write up info for 'standard' human then. I can see that to a certain degree typical behaviour and basic traditions are part of 'standard', but realistically speaking if your group meets goblins in the far northern snowy mountains at the ice lakes, at the jungles of an unexplored recently found 'new' continent, or among the urban ruins in a hot desert they should all look and act very differently.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012662I never thought things like culture, resources, tactics, clothes or armor, weaponry is part of what 'standard' means. Would love to see how someone attempts to write up info for 'standard' human then. I can see that to a certain degree typical behaviour and basic traditions are part of 'standard', but realistically speaking if your group meets goblins in the far northern snowy mountains at the ice lakes, at the jungles of an unexplored recently found 'new' continent, or among the urban ruins in a hot desert they should all look and act very differently.

Exactly.

The old school monster lists also provide stat blocks ofr various sorts of "standard" men.  Many posting here see the standard listings as just that, standards. Call them examples if you prefer.

I am not szying a GM cannot change them, but it is wise to let the players know that this is a possibility. Even moreso if what is described as "Orc in chain mail A" is going to have different stats to what is described as "Orc in chain mail B", especially if the game has a standard profile for "orc in chain mail"

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010637You are absolutely correct but Ill be a little cautious in agreeing with you as it may seem as though its an indirect reference to another thread I started recently. This thread has NOTHING to do with that other one, although now in retrospect I can see a correlation.

It seems like an exact followup; you portrayed the criticism you got in that thread as a demand that the Monster Manual be inviolate:

Quote from: rgrove0172;1009847From what you are saying my description must match their perception, and frankly the one by the designers of the game we are playing, exactly.

So it makes this thread look like you're trolling for gotchas, and therefore it shouldn't surprise you if people are a little cautious in responding to your question here.

---

[/HR]I use the monsters from D&D 5e as is heavily, but currently I mostly run D&D AL organized play at a game store and conventions, so it's an agreed upon expectation for that. There's still some very slight latitude to change them; also, some can use illusions or shape change and thus appear to be something else, which from the player point of view is like a monster with unexpected abilities. But more commonly it's varying strategy and spell choice and so on. On the other hand, the modules and campaign books introduce new monsters pretty often, and that doesn't seem to bother anybody.

In my own campaigns, I vary a lot more but I still want some consistency and logic behind the monsters I end up with, and if they are very different I will call them something else or emphasize some difference in appearance that gives the players warning. Players sometimes draw bad conclusions (although they call it disagreeing with my judgement of consistency and logic). In one case in OD&D, the players encountered a group of a hundred flying elephants, and one player tried to sleep one, figuring they must be less than five hit dice or they wouldn't appear in such large numbers. When he complained after the spell failed and explained his reasoning, After noting that I was under no obligation to match the combat strength of wandering monsters to the party, I pointed out that the herd was non-hostile and many would be non-combatants in any case, and why wouldn't flying elephants have as many hit dice as non-flying elephants? But another monster I added caused the players to overreact; I wanted a weak non-corporeal undead, but players believed that non-corporeal undead meant at least as strong as a wraith, and likely to drain levels. Eventually they figured that out after running away from some easy encounters; it helps if their misjudgements don't lead them to overreach (attacking something that is too strong), since running away from a weak monster is mostly harmless.

I would have to ponder a lot more to decide exactly where the boundaries are between reasonable and unreasonable changes, and it's entirely possible that I might have an inconsistent standard when all is said and done. You may take that as scoring a gotcha point if you like.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1012616Any number of things: size, hit dice, tactics, personality, items and resources.  So, not that different from your list.

I've no problem with there being bigger or tougher orcs, gnolls, ogres, gargoyles, or what have you. But once you change the hit dice from the standard monster hit dice you aren't using a standard monster.

Quote from: Bren;1012829I've no problem with there being bigger or tougher orcs, gnolls, ogres, gargoyles, or what have you. But once you change the hit dice from the standard monster hit dice you aren't using a standard monster.

What's a standard monster? Oh, you mean the 'suggested" one in the rule book? Yeah, that's one version I suppose.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012833What's a standard monster? Oh, you mean the 'suggested" one in the rule book? Yeah, that's one version I suppose.

Why don't you tell me what you think a standard monster is?

Oh, oh wait I know the answer to this one.

You don't think there is any such thing as a standard anything. It's all smoke, mirrors, and GM whim, right? :rolleyes:

As I listed earlier there are many things I don't consider 'standard',  I do however consider the attributes and HP standard.

Then of course, if I make named creatures/NPC I make them like proper characters as I also mentioned, depending on system with classes or more points, ect.

Still, I keep the stats for the masses intact with exceptions like gear. Ergo I dress the standards up depending on circumstances. An average 'Chinese' goblin's strength is still equal to the average strength of a 'Mayan' goblin otherwise we talk subspecies and not the standard race anymore.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012833What's a standard monster? Oh, you mean the 'suggested" one in the rule book? Yeah, that's one version I suppose.

So you are saying that in your game I am just as likely to meet a goblin with 2 hit points as a goblin with 200 hit points? Everyone in the game world knows that there is no such thing as an average or standard goblin? Goblins are just as likely to be powerful as weak? And most importantly there is no way to know going in to the fight which you are facing? In point of fact, which one you facing could change at any moment!  And you players are OK with this.

How does any player in one of your games judge what to do in any situation? It seems there is total arbitrariness and no standard.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1012889So you are saying that in your game I am just as likely to meet a goblin with 2 hit points as a goblin with 200 hit points? Everyone in the game world knows that there is no such thing as an average or standard goblin? Goblins are just as likely to be powerful as weak? And most importantly there is no way to know going in to the fight which you are facing? In point of fact, which one you facing could change at any moment!  And you players are OK with this.

How does any player in one of your games judge what to do in any situation? It seems there is total arbitrariness and no standard.

There are all kinds of humans...huge strong ones, small lithe ones, fat slow ones, smart skinny ones.. same with elves, dwarves, gnomes....there are similarities,amid species sure but plenty of variety. Why should goblins be clones? You get an idea what your facing when you see it. It might and probably is a bit different than any norm. It's supposed to represent a real fantasy world after all. The orc with chainmail looked pretty average but his tribe were an inferior breed. Nuff said.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012901There are all kinds of humans...huge strong ones, small lithe ones, fat slow ones, smart skinny ones.. same with elves, dwarves, gnomes....there are similarities,amid species sure but plenty of variety. Why should goblins be clones? You get an idea what your facing when you see it. It might and probably is a bit different than any norm. It's supposed to represent a real fantasy world after all. The orc with chainmail looked pretty average but his tribe were an inferior breed. Nuff said.

If you like Goblins with 120 hp, you might like 4e D&D - you can fight Elite Brute goblins with 120 hp at 2nd level (see Dungeon Delve (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/110211/Dungeon-Delve-4e), the #2 delve) ! :)

Quote from: S'mon;1012903If you like Goblins with 120 hp, you might like 4e D&D - you can fight Elite Brute goblins with 120 hp at 2nd level (see Dungeon Delve (http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/110211/Dungeon-Delve-4e), the #2 delve) ! :)

Don't need them but thanks. If one exists I'm my world I can make him myself.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012833What's a standard monster? Oh, you mean the 'suggested" one in the rule book? Yeah, that's one version I suppose.

Holy cow, are we trying to have a meaningful conversation or not? You are the one who started this conversation, and the one that determined that we would be discussing the monsters as presented by the system books. You phrase them as 'monsters or adversaries from your system of choice' and 'provided adversaries,' but when someone calls them 'standard monster,' that's problematic and you change it to 'suggested?' What purpose did that serve?

Would it help if we use the term "book standard" to clarify that we are simply talking about what the book puts forth as stats, and not attach any additional cachet to it?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012946Holy cow, are we trying to have a meaningful conversation or not? You are the one who started this conversation, and the one that determined that we would be discussing the monsters as presented by the system books. You phrase them as 'monsters or adversaries from your system of choice' and 'provided adversaries,' but when someone calls them 'standard monster,' that's problematic and you change it to 'suggested?' What purpose did that serve?

Would it help if we use the term "book standard" to clarify that we are simply talking about what the book puts forth as stats, and not attach any additional cachet to it?

I was responding to the post that seemed to imply that 'standard' monsters in the book were sacred in someway, as if making your own or changing them was inferior. I respect everyone's opinion in this thread, actually more variety than I expected.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012901There are all kinds of humans...huge strong ones, small lithe ones, fat slow ones, smart skinny ones.. same with elves, dwarves, gnomes....there are similarities,amid species sure but plenty of variety. Why should goblins be clones? You get an idea what your facing when you see it. It might and probably is a bit different than any norm. It's supposed to represent a real fantasy world after all. The orc with chainmail looked pretty average but his tribe were an inferior breed. Nuff said.

But this is not what you told your player or us.

"
Player: So how the hell am I supposed to know what anything is, how good or challenging it will be? Chainmail isnt really chainmail, a broadsword really isnt a broadsword...

GM (Interrupting and a little hacked) ... yeah, thats right and a fireball may not do the same damage, a fall from the roof may do more, and they might take a saving throw differently too. So what? Its my world, those that live in it and arent under your control function as I see them, not based specifically on some freaking rulebook.

Player: Well how nice, I guess we all just live to adventure in your own little special and private version of a fantasy world where everything, even natural laws, are yours to change.

GM: Err.. umm, yeah.. exactly!"

Right here, you are once again telling us that the rules do not matter, descriptions do not matter, nothing we see matters.

"
GM: No you hit his AC of 11, fair and square. The orcs typically wear mail though, these do anyway, soldiers of the Black Duke and all. Doesnt matter how I describe it. I designed him with an AC of 11. Thats what you use when you fight him."

You are giving the lie to your own statements right here.  The player does NOT get an idea of what they are facing when they see it because "doesn't matter how I describe it."

You admitted to the player in this example that Chainmail is AC14, but this orc, who was wearing chainmail, was AC11, and gave no other reason than "I designed him with AC11."

You keep getting into trouble with your players over the same types of issues. You keep coming to us asking what we think. You keep sounding surrised when we give the smae responses.  You claim to "get it" but obviously you do not. If you did you would no longer express surprise at our answers. That you refuse to change your methodology in the face of consistently presented experience that it does not work, and consistent examples and explanations of why it does not work is your own choice.  But don't expect us to change our tune any time soon, and expect us to grow increasingly frustrated at the farce.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012959I was responding to the post that seemed to imply that 'standard' monsters in the book were sacred in someway, as if making your own or changing them was inferior. I respect everyone's opinion in this thread, actually more variety than I expected.

That is not how I read Bren's post, but if it's just a difference in how we read it, that's fine. What I don't want is an argument over words. 'Standard Monster,' 'provided adversaries,' 'by-the-book versions,... it's all the same as long as we agree on what we're talking about.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012959I was responding to the post that seemed to imply that 'standard' monsters in the book were sacred in someway, as if making your own or changing them was inferior. I respect everyone's opinion in this thread, actually more variety than I expected.

Which one of the two sentences that I wrote sounds like I'm talking about something sacred?

• "I've no problem with there being bigger or tougher orcs, gnolls, ogres, gargoyles, or what have you."
  
• "But once you change the hit dice from the standard monster hit dice you aren't using a standard monster."
  

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012979That is not how I read Bren's post, but if it's just a difference in how we read it, that's fine. What I don't want is an argument over words. 'Standard Monster,' 'provided adversaries,' 'by-the-book versions,... it's all the same as long as we agree on what we're talking about.

You read my post correctly and as I intended it. I did not think what I wrote was at all ambiguous or inscrutable so I'm a bit perplex how rgrove is reading something diametrically the opposite of what I meant from what I wrote.

If my opinion matters something, I didn't read Bren's comment like that either.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1012959I was responding to the post that seemed to imply that 'standard' monsters in the book were sacred in someway, as if making your own or changing them was inferior.

By the Holy Writ of Gygax, if you change anything you're no longer playing D&D! The Sorcerer's Scroll has spoken!

Quote from: Dumarest;1012991By the Holy Writ of Gygax, if you change anything you're no longer playing D&D! The Sorcerer's Scroll has spoken!

That's not true.


...I kinda feel like I semi-agree and semi-disagree with Grove here. Am I a centrist? A "Despicable Neutral"?

Spoiler

(https://forumcontent.paradoxplaza.com/public/163630/Neutrality.jpg)

Quote from: joriandrake;1012992That's not true.

Please tell me you knew Dumarest was joking.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012995Please tell me you knew Dumarest was joking.

... lack of coffee, being tired, too much weirdness discussed in threads, still being Hungarian, so... I wasn't sure? o.O

Quote from: Dumarest;1012991By the Holy Writ of Gygax, if you change anything you're no longer playing D&D! The Sorcerer's Scroll has spoken!

No, Sorcerer's Scroll was in Dragon. Wasn't that statement in the DMG?  Because I'm pretty sure Gary Gygax actually did publish exactly this sort of pompous ass proclamation, maybe even more than once.

Having no access to the man besides what he published, especially in the AD&D rulebooks, he did not come off very well.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012995Please tell me you knew Dumarest was joking.

It's not a joke if Gygax actually said it.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013005It's not a joke if Gygax actually said it.

I read it as a joke on two levels.

DIY Gary Gygax wouldn't have said anything as crazy totalitarian as that. So it has to be a joke. Later "let's standardize D&D for conventions and put up IP barriers because money" Gary did say something like that. Which was silly of him. So again a joke. But the joke was on Gary. Sort of.

Quote from: joriandrake;1012999... lack of coffee, being tired, too much weirdness discussed in threads, still being Hungarian, so... I wasn't sure? o.O

Right, forgot. Sorry. As someone who has failed to learn both German and Slovak, I can only applaud anyone who'd even try to carry on a conversation like this in a non-native tongue.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1013003No, Sorcerer's Scroll was in Dragon. Wasn't that statement in the DMG?  Because I'm pretty sure Gary Gygax actually did publish exactly this sort of pompous ass proclamation, maybe even more than once.

Having no access to the man besides what he published, especially in the AD&D rulebooks, he did not come off very well.

Quote from: Bren;1013037I read it as a joke on two levels.

DIY Gary Gygax wouldn't have said anything as crazy totalitarian as that. So it has to be a joke. Later "let's standardize D&D for conventions and put up IP barriers because money" Gary did say something like that. Which was silly of him. So again a joke. But the joke was on Gary. Sort of.

Yes yes, we can clearly see different priorities and expressed personality in the man as he appears in print, depending on timeframe. IRL Gary undoubtedly was flawed in his own ways (he was, after all, a real person). But the need to put the man on a pedestal and then (like any celebrity) proceed to find (real or manufactured) flaws in them to drag him back down seems so ghoulish and mean-spirited on our part. Why can't he just be a man (one without a PR department, and who should have occasionally held his tongue, just like all of us)?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013060Right, forgot. Sorry. As someone who has failed to learn both German and Slovak, I can only applaud anyone who'd even try to carry on a conversation like this in a non-native tongue.

No worries, btw sarcasm is another thing that translates badly over via internet, just to pre-empt problems with that. :)

Quote from: Bren;1012835Why don't you tell me what you think a standard monster is?

Oh, oh wait I know the answer to this one.

You don't think there is any such thing as a standard anything. It's all smoke, mirrors, and GM whim, right? :rolleyes:

I think my earlier suggestion, that rgrove172 wants to portray everyone who disagreed with him in the earlier thread as religiously devoted to their game books, is looking more likely. If he can't get an actual gotcha, he's going to make one up.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1013060Why can't he just be a man (one without a PR department, and who should have occasionally held his tongue, just like all of us)?

I see no reason he can't be considered just a man.Looking at Gary Gygax as a fallible human being is not inconsistent with finding the comment humorous for either reason I mentioned.

Quote from: Bren;1012986Which one of the two sentences that I wrote sounds like I'm talking about something sacred?

• "I've no problem with there being bigger or tougher orcs, gnolls, ogres, gargoyles, or what have you."
  
• "But once you change the hit dice from the standard monster hit dice you aren't using a standard monster."
  

You read my post correctly and as I intended it. I did not think what I wrote was at all ambiguous or inscrutable so I'm a bit perplex how rgrove is reading something diametrically the opposite of what I meant from what I wrote.

How do you NOT get that from sentence 2? Its pretty blatant.. Standard Monster should be italicized and capitalized its so clear.

But please, stick a fork in this one and let it die. Im exhausted. You guys win... again. Yeah!

Quote from: rgrove0172;1013163How do you NOT get that from sentence 2? Its pretty blatant.. Standard Monster should be italicized and capitalized its so clear.

Because things that are standard* and things that should be treated as sacred or as revealed truths aren't even in the same section of the galaxy.


* Standard i.e. the norm, the mode, the default, or pick some other word. Here maybe the Willie the Duck can explain what "standard" means in this context.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012946Would it help if we use the term "book standard" to clarify that we are simply talking about what the book puts forth as stats, and not attach any additional cachet to it?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1012979'Standard Monster,' 'provided adversaries,' 'by-the-book versions,... it's all the same as long as we agree on what we're talking about.

Yes, yes, I was merely joking...wasn't  the Sorcerer's Scroll the name of his column in Dragon? Did I misremember that? Anyway, I was referring to a notorious statement he made as the face of TSR, which I'm sure had little basis in how he actually played D&D by the accounts I have read from people who played with him. But some people took that stuff seriously, at least back in those days...

I see that now. But at the time I was playing AD&D one of the things that drove us to other systems was the Gygaxian pronouncements on what was and was not "playing Dunungeons & Dragons"  It was pompous shite and there were plenty of other games out there that didn't tell us we were doing it wrong if we changed something.  Those notorious statements were all we had to go on to form our opinion of Gary, and he didn't come off very well.

Quote from: DavetheLost;1012643Size, hit dice, and items are the same for standard monsters of the same type in older editions of D&D. They are all represented by teh numbers in the standard stat block.

Personality, tactics, and resources can vary between individuals. But a standard Orc is a standard orc. EG: AC: 6, HD: 1, Attacks: 1, Damage: 1-6, Move: 120'

The keyword there is 'standard'.  That's like how there's stats for the 'standard' human. Even in the monster manual, you read about higher HD orcs, or other variations.

Quote from: rgrove0172;1010549How often do you use the monsters or adversaries from your system of choice?

100%

QuoteHow many do you create on you're own from scratch?

about 235 complete so far;

QuoteWhat's the percentage?

100%

QuoteI know for me no matter what system im using the bad guys provided just rarely seem to fit the setting without major changes and fairly frequently won't fit at all. I'd say I use provided adversaries maybe 10 or 20% of the time, the rest are designed from scratch.

Generally statistics wise never had much issue, but purported "ecology" as given in the game books, rarely fits and just ignore.   Really just avoided it all by going with my own house rules that evolved into a home brew system.  Since started house modifying AD&D about 38 years ago, and it evolved fairly slowly, developed several iterations to "map" AD&D and D&D to it.    

If you are finding monsters as provided an issue.  Go with a simpler system, such as BX, OD&D, Dragon Warriors, TFT, Atomic Highway ( :) ) where you can stat out a monster in under 15 mins.