When my players encounter a monster that's new to them, they'll often ask after the encounter something to the effect of, "what is that monster called?" (after all, they want to talk about it and tell others what they slew, etc.). I tried to come up with cool names, and sometimes they thought so too. It was ... fine.

In my latest campaign I have stopped answering that question, instead replying with the dreaded "who is your character asking?" And wow, this tiny change produced a much more profound effect on the game than I suspected.

Players of course had to name the monsters themselves in order to talk about them. And they did. Gloriously. With names that represent their own history and experiences with the monster. Their level of engagement leaped. Now when they talk about their exploits there isn't just boasting that they bested a creature everyone knows to be dangerous, there's also a much deeper pride that they know a thing -- named a thing -- in the world. They aren't just experiencing the world, they are discovering it. And being the ones to invent the name for their discoveries allows their characters' interaction with the game world to highlight that difference.

It's been awesome.

I go back and forth on this.  There's pros and cons to both approaches.  Finally, what I started doing lately was trying to do some of both, to enjoy the advantages of both sides.  I have some monsters that are deliberately common.  Everyone knows (or thinks they know) what they are.  Then some more that are obscure, but a character who thinks and digs a little can make an educated guess on what the monster really is.  Then there's the obscure stuff that they've got to figure out as you discuss.

This means that there is some grounding in the common things to kind of frame the world, and then the more obscure things have that effect where they name it themselves.  However, the best part to me is the middle ground, when someone makes that educated guess and gets it wrong.  Because now the monster has a name in their heads that really belongs to something else, and when they meet that something else, thinking has to shift.

Quote from: Zalman on February 18, 2023, 08:36:59 AM
When my players encounter a monster that's new to them, they'll often ask after the encounter something to the effect of, "what is that monster called?" (after all, they want to talk about it and tell others what they slew, etc.). I tried to come up with cool names, and sometimes they thought so too. It was ... fine.

In my latest campaign I have stopped answering that question, instead replying with the dreaded "who is your character asking?" And wow, this tiny change produced a much more profound effect on the game than I suspected.

Players of course had to name the monsters themselves in order to talk about them. And they did. Gloriously. With names that represent their own history and experiences with the monster. Their level of engagement leaped. Now when they talk about their exploits there isn't just boasting that they bested a creature everyone knows to be dangerous, there's also a much deeper pride that they know a thing -- named a thing -- in the world. They aren't just experiencing the world, they are discovering it. And being the ones to invent the name for their discoveries allows their characters' interaction with the game world to highlight that difference.

It's been awesome.

Player: "I'm going to strip nude so I have no penalties, then swim down to the wreck."

DM: "As you descend in through the hole in the hull, a creature suddenly moves to block your escape."

Player: "What's the creature called?"

DM: "A Rape-Clam."

Player: "...I have made a terrible mistake."

Quote from: Zalman on February 18, 2023, 08:36:59 AM
When my players encounter a monster that's new to them, they'll often ask after the encounter something to the effect of, "what is that monster called?" (after all, they want to talk about it and tell others what they slew, etc.). I tried to come up with cool names, and sometimes they thought so too. It was ... fine.

In my latest campaign I have stopped answering that question, instead replying with the dreaded "who is your character asking?" And wow, this tiny change produced a much more profound effect on the game than I suspected.

Players of course had to name the monsters themselves in order to talk about them. And they did. Gloriously. With names that represent their own history and experiences with the monster. Their level of engagement leaped. Now when they talk about their exploits there isn't just boasting that they bested a creature everyone knows to be dangerous, there's also a much deeper pride that they know a thing -- named a thing -- in the world. They aren't just experiencing the world, they are discovering it. And being the ones to invent the name for their discoveries allows their characters' interaction with the game world to highlight that difference.

It's been awesome.

Cool idea.

I imagine very common monsters will have a commonly held name. But unusual ones will likely have different names in every village and town you encounter. Maybe multiple ones. And then very rare ones will have...whatever the party comes up with.

I do this with undead when playing OD&D. Paralyzing touch, level drain, etc is terrifying. Not knowing if it is a factor or not, even more so.

Interesting points about common monsters vs uncommon monsters. In my campaigns, I tend to go with the medieval notion that news, culture, and knowledge doesn't travel very far -- often not farther than the next town or two down the road. That kind of changes what it means for something to be "common" knowledge about monsters.

Of course, if a certain "monster" is everywhere in the world, that's a different matter, but that doesn't feel too "monstrous" to me (more like a Race or an Animal), and I don't use that motif much for my campaigns.

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 18, 2023, 12:07:51 PM
DM: "A Rape-Clam."

Good counterpoint: using the name itself to strike terror in the hearts of players!

Quote from: Zalman on February 19, 2023, 08:32:11 AM

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 18, 2023, 12:07:51 PM
DM: "A Rape-Clam."

Good counterpoint: using the name itself to strike terror in the hearts arse of players!

Fixed it for you

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 18, 2023, 12:07:51 PM

Quote from: Zalman on February 18, 2023, 08:36:59 AM
When my players encounter a monster that's new to them, they'll often ask after the encounter something to the effect of, "what is that monster called?" (after all, they want to talk about it and tell others what they slew, etc.). I tried to come up with cool names, and sometimes they thought so too. It was ... fine.

In my latest campaign I have stopped answering that question, instead replying with the dreaded "who is your character asking?" And wow, this tiny change produced a much more profound effect on the game than I suspected.

Players of course had to name the monsters themselves in order to talk about them. And they did. Gloriously. With names that represent their own history and experiences with the monster. Their level of engagement leaped. Now when they talk about their exploits there isn't just boasting that they bested a creature everyone knows to be dangerous, there's also a much deeper pride that they know a thing -- named a thing -- in the world. They aren't just experiencing the world, they are discovering it. And being the ones to invent the name for their discoveries allows their characters' interaction with the game world to highlight that difference.

It's been awesome.

Player: "I'm going to strip nude so I have no penalties, then swim down to the wreck."

DM: "As you descend in through the hole in the hull, a creature suddenly moves to block your escape."

Player: "What's the creature called?"

DM: "A Rape-Clam."

Player: "...I have made a terrible mistake."

Wife and I got a huge laugh out of this.

This is my favourite thread now.

Agreed! I do the same in my games.

However, I do show images... my players often recognize common monsters like ghoul, trolls, etc.

It is not a big problem, TBH - but I like re-skinning or adding new monsters from time to time (I wrote the Teratogenicon, my monster generator, for a similar purpose).

That seems fair, grants some better immersion and saves you a little bit of repetitive descriptions.

20-odd years back I was a player in a 3.0/3.5 game where when the monsters were introduced, another player at the table would open up his copy of the monster manual and read up on it...

Now THAT is metagaming!

... Or storygaming, not sure now.

Quote from: ClusterFluster on February 19, 2023, 11:25:32 AM
Now THAT is metagaming!

... Or storygaming, not sure now.

That makes me think about how it is that skills crept into the game in the first place. Trying to justify how your character knows about an incredibly rare monster in the first party's encounter would involve appealing to the fact that you didn't know how to put on an elaborate performance or craft something intricate until you'd already rolled well previously.