Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1073714Isn't that what I just said? Not subject to the laws of geometry? I mean, like, the god Euclid makes exceptions for immortals or something? (AFAIK there was never a deity of space and geometry, so Euclid is the only name I can devise.)

I think it would fall under Yog-Sothoth's portfolio.

In any case, I thinking reading fairytales, myths, pre-Tolkien fiction, etc is enormously important to getting a balanced view of what fantasy can be.

Sure, most of that won't be immediately useful if your D&D setting is one of the standard death worlds where every party must constantly fend off carnivorous plants, monstrous animals, cannibal tribes, etc.

But, and this is a big but, the ability of folklore griffins to scent gold and other precious metals to line their nests is a very logical justification for why dwarves, who live in caves and mines, would domesticate and even ride them.

Among other ideas.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1073744I think it would fall under Yog-Sothoth's portfolio.

Good catch!

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1073568One of the most eye opening contrasts to me was that mythic giants lack consistent size. For that matter, so do many mortals.

Pantagruel could fit into a courthouse yet harbored a nation in his teeth. Welsh hero Bran waded (not swam) the Irish Sea yet fit into a mortal chieftain's hall. The cyclops Brontes wed and had giant children with the sea-nymph Liana who fit in his palm. One of a set of ten Chinese brothers, while not a giant, could swallow the sea.

Did their size actually change or are they simply not subject to the laws of geometry?

In nordic folklore, it was occasionally noted that trolls could use magic or "troll" themselves small or big.
I have no idea how common this was though, or if it is a post-facto explanation to explain some of the size oddities once people started question matters.
(Source: the Giant Finn and the building of the great cathedral in Lund. Swedish tale, clearly inspired in part by Rumpelstiltskin or a similar tale-ending.)

The interesting part there, is that it conflates most or even all giants with trolls, adding further to the creature type - confusion.

Quote from: Catelf;1073799The interesting part there, is that it conflates most or even all giants with trolls, adding further to the creature type - confusion.

I can see the relation of frost giants and trolls. All the cold/ice/mountain/cave/darkness/underworld/Niflheim types. Not the Muspelheim fire giants though.

Quote from: Catelf;1073799In nordic folklore, it was occasionally noted that trolls could use magic or "troll" themselves small or big.
I have no idea how common this was though, or if it is a post-facto explanation to explain some of the size oddities once people started question matters.
(Source: the Giant Finn and the building of the great cathedral in Lund. Swedish tale, clearly inspired in part by Rumpelstiltskin or a similar tale-ending.)

The interesting part there, is that it conflates most or even all giants with trolls, adding further to the creature type - confusion.

Trolls were most likely derived from Jotun. They seem to be a fairly generic grouping including both giant and dwarfish creatures. Trudvang, which attempts to apply very basic categories, includes goblins and similar under the troll umbrella. (Giants are specifically elemental beings in Trudvang, but this distinction is an attempt to reconcile older Norse and younger Scandinavian mythology.)

Quote from: S'mon;1073827I can see the relation of frost giants and trolls. All the cold/ice/mountain/cave/darkness/underworld/Niflheim types. Not the Muspelheim fire giants though.

Giving clear elemental affinities to giants makes them much more interesting in my opinion. I tried to devise a taxonomy for giants from different cultures as part of a unified world building exercise.

• Earth (and Hell, because classic myth association) giants include (but not limited to) Greek gigantes, Japanese oni, and Irish fomori.
• Water giants include Norse frost jotun and sea jotun.
• Air giants include Norse sky jotun and those associated with sandstorms, such as Arabic jinn and Persian div.
• Fire giants include the Norse fire jotun and the Arabic ifrit.

I didn't make a distinction between genies and giants because genies fulfill the Arabic world's archetype of giants, demons, ogres, etc.

Trolls are a pan-giant category, since they include non-giants like the trold and huldrefolk. Depending on how you decide to idiomatically translate cultural concepts, a large-sized genie like the ifrit would be a giant and a troll while a medium-sized genie like D&D's jann would be merely a troll or huldrefolk.

I plan on giving more attention to my world building later when I have more time.

Quote from: SHARK;1072817Happy, Hippy Nymph-Women? LOL! BULLOCKS! Not even fucking *close*!

In my view, such creatures as seen in the folklore and mythology are far more "morally diverse" and interesting as to their personalities and motives than any Disneyfied presentation that has typically been found in D&D. All of the diverse creatures from folklore make traveling through the wilderness far more interesting and dangerous--and certainly unpredictable--than the typical D&D presentation would otherwise indicate. REAL Folklore and Mythology is absolutely *wild* with magic, uncertainty, seduction, sex, torture, vengeance and death. Occasionally, such Nymph-like women can be romanced and won over to being a wondrous ally or wife, but the idea that such "Faerie Women" are *always* sweet, happy, hippy girls that just prance about in meadows is merely scratching the surface. That is the *least* thing they do, and Disney Hippy girls they most certainly are not. LOL.

What do you all think my friends? Have you found creatures from folklore and myth to be *more* intriguing than the typical D&D presentation?

What a nice day for necro.

Anyway, D&D is a poster-boy for pissing all over folklore and traditional myths. It's the big-mac of burger business -- stale and tasteless. It's a culture of it's own we have come to accept as RPG gamers. You can hit it with an axe, right?

But to give some good examples, I'd point out to games that want to be different than D&D -- on of which at the time was Dragon Warriors.

Check out it's monster manual for some really good folky mythicy monsters:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/92332/Dragon-Warriors-Bestiary

Quote from: jux;1082880Anyway, D&D is a poster-boy for pissing all over folklore and traditional myths. It's the big-mac of burger business -- stale and tasteless. It's a culture of it's own we have come to accept as RPG gamers.

I dont know that I would agree that DnD monsters are stale and tasteless.  Certainly Americans are notoriously prudish when it comes to sexy times with wild Nymphs so personally I would not be adverse to Europeaning them a little.

One problem that I would have with trying to stick closely to "traditional" folklore and myths is that no one can actually agree on what the "true" folklore is.  The Troll from one village may have little to nothing in common with the Troll of the next village.  In fact it was a common practise during the Victorian era to just make up myth and folklore - much easier then actually having to go out and research it yourself.

QuoteYou can hit it with an axe, right?

I remember one poster with a particular bug bear over the use of "cold iron" in DnD when traditionally "cold iron" was just steel.  Which explains why most traditional Fey have a weakness to being hit with an axe.

Quote from: Shasarak;1082942One problem that I would have with trying to stick closely to "traditional" folklore and myths is that no one can actually agree on what the "true" folklore is.  The Troll from one village may have little to nothing in common with the Troll of the next village.  In fact it was a common practise during the Victorian era to just make up myth and folklore - much easier then actually having to go out and research it yourself.

Pundit stated in another post a while ago that the simplest way to deal with this is to introduce all these as variants. I agree, as I think D&D has a long-standing problem with cookie-cutter monsters. (That isn't meant to ignore the opposite extreme: monster bloat. This remains an ongoing problem ever since the OGL came into effect.)

Quote from: Shasarak;1082942I remember one poster with a particular bug bear over the use of "cold iron" in DnD when traditionally "cold iron" was just steel.  Which explains why most traditional Fey have a weakness to being hit with an axe.

IIRC, one of the supplements for Changeling: The Lost had a section which discussed this very issue and offered a variety of suggestions for how STs could deal with it. I don't know if it was presented as the default or not but the simplest suggestion stated: since fairy magic operated on legalese logic (as explained in the rulebook's fluff), then any substance with "iron" in its standardized name would qualify. So cast iron and wrought iron would qualify, but forged steel and stainless steel wouldn't.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1082972monster bloat

Care to explain how and why this is a problem?

Quote from: Shasarak;1082942One problem that I would have with trying to stick closely to "traditional" folklore and myths is that no one can actually agree on what the "true" folklore is.  The Troll from one village may have little to nothing in common with the Troll of the next village.

I tend to like DCC's answer to that:  There is no race of trolls.  The monster eating goats under the bridge is a troll, and Grendel is the Troll of Heorot, but they don't really have anything in common aside from being monsters which the locals have dubbed "troll".

The whole idea of having a taxonomy of monsters, each belonging to a specific, distinct, named type is pretty modern.  It's not essential to be so taxonomic, and it's much more true to both mythology and the medieval world to have vague, common names which the locals apply to whatever their neighborhood monster might be, without those names being standardized.  The thing they call a "troll" here might be called a "goblin" by the people in the next village, and vice-versa.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1082972(That isn't meant to ignore the opposite extreme: monster bloat. This remains an ongoing problem ever since the OGL came into effect.)

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082974Care to explain how and why this is a problem?

The most obvious way would be that many GMs feel like they should include every published monster (or class or race or...) in their worlds instead of being selective about it for the sake of creating and maintaining a world which feels internally consistent.  Or, conversely, players who believe that their GM should/must include everything.  It's not necessary (or, IMO, desirable) for every setting to be a kitchen sink mish-mash of every idea that has ever occurred to anyone with access to a copy of the OGL and a PDF layout program.

Quote from: nDervish;1082977I tend to like DCC's answer to that:  There is no race of trolls.  The monster eating goats under the bridge is a troll, and Grendel is the Troll of Heorot, but they don't really have anything in common aside from being monsters which the locals have dubbed "troll".

The whole idea of having a taxonomy of monsters, each belonging to a specific, distinct, named type is pretty modern.  It's not essential to be so taxonomic, and it's much more true to both mythology and the medieval world to have vague, common names which the locals apply to whatever their neighborhood monster might be, without those names being standardized.  The thing they call a "troll" here might be called a "goblin" by the people in the next village, and vice-versa.

I'm trying my hand at writing fairy tales in the original pre-Disney style, so this is a very helpful mindset to have. I feel so much freer when I write that way.

When I tried to write trolls, pretty much the only thing they had in common was that they had ugly exaggerated features and turned to stone in sunlight.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082974Care to explain how and why this is a problem?

Quote from: nDervish;1082977The most obvious way would be that many GMs feel like they should include every published monster (or class or race or...) in their worlds instead of being selective about it for the sake of creating and maintaining a world which feels internally consistent.  Or, conversely, players who believe that their GM should/must include everything.  It's not necessary (or, IMO, desirable) for every setting to be a kitchen sink mish-mash of every idea that has ever occurred to anyone with access to a copy of the OGL and a PDF layout program.

There are so many monsters that many often end up being redundant, even before you bring in 3pp.

We have kobolds, orcs, goblins, etc. How many variations on Tolkien's goblins/orcs do we need?

How many variations of "water spirit that drowns you" do we need?

Most of them are just filler, so their backstory is generally lackluster if they even have any.

Most bestiaries feel like dart boards than anything else.

As I've said before, I always felt it made more sense to design monsters around archetypes rather than whatever they are now.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1082984We have kobolds, orcs, goblins, etc. How many variations on Tolkien's goblins/orcs do we need?

I both split off and combined some of these in my world's lore. Kobolds are beastmen; one of many species created by the biomancers of the First Empire as slave labor. Kobolds were engineered to scurry through small places and fix things. During the Beastman Rebellion that brought the First Empire to an end they served as sappers and saboteurs and became the chosen people of the Forge God. They've lived in the nooks and crannies of human civilizations for thousands of years now and are available as PCs.

Goblins were another species of beastmen created from bats who acted as messengers. After the Rebellion they formed an advanced highly social society that endured right up to the Cataclysm. In the aftermath of the Cataclysm they were enslaved en masse by the newly created Orcs who proceeded to breed them over the course of a hundred generations (because beastmen are capable of reproduction by age two) into virtually mindless slave soldiers and cannon-fodder (so degenerate that fewer than one-in-a-hundred are born with still functional wings) for the Orcish Empire.

There do exist small colonies of goblins who were never enslaved, remain highly social and capable of flight. They are available as PCs. They hate having to fight their own kind, but most believe that the orc's slaves are beyond rescue and that killing them is a mercy.

Orcs are humans mutated by the Cataclysm into super-predators. They are as intelligent and cunning as Men, but also stronger, faster and with sharper senses (including night vision and bloodhound level smell), ugly as sin and exceptionally aggressive. They have formed an Empire devoted to conquest to keep them from turning their bloodlust on each other (though presently the death of their Great Kahn without a chosen successor has led to a four way civil war between his children which has bought the neighboring realms some breathing room). As true-breeding mutant humans, they can and do breed with ordinary humans and their traits can persist for generations thereafter.

As if that weren't bad enough about 10% of the orcs just don't stop growing and become ten to twenty foot tall monstrosities called ogres who rule over the orcs (and their goblin slaves) with an iron fist.

And we can't forget trolls; another type of human mutation that, in addition to warping their bodies, turned their healing up to 12, but only through the creation of hideous scar tissue. Other types of mutants include cyclops, troglodytes and spikers.

I'm considering though removing the term Mutant (even if the pre-cataclysm world was essentially a magi-tech utopia where science and magic were essentially the same thing and the concept of mutation would have been known) and just calling the entire category Trolls; with Orcs/Ogres, Cyclops, Hulks (what I'd call the D&D troll classic), Trogs, etc. as different subtypes of Troll.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1082972Pundit stated in another post a while ago that the simplest way to deal with this is to introduce all these as variants. I agree, as I think D&D has a long-standing problem with cookie-cutter monsters. (That isn't meant to ignore the opposite extreme: monster bloat. This remains an ongoing problem ever since the OGL came into effect.)
...

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1082974Care to explain how and why this is a problem?

Maybe not a problem depending on your point of view.

But a consequence of the Hit Point inflation prevalent in most Class/Level based systems.

These systems need the endless list of monsters to fight because many monsters stop being credible threats to the PC's as they level up.

So you start to get a Monster of the week syndrome, where you need a stream of monsters so that the PC's are appropriately challenged at every level.

This has had a knock on effect over the decades of gaming...

Quote from: nDervish;1082977...
The most obvious way would be that many GMs feel like they should include every published monster (or class or race or...) in their worlds ... Or, conversely, players who believe that their GM should/must include everything.  It's not necessary (or, IMO, desirable) for every setting to be a kitchen sink mish-mash of every idea that has ever occurred to anyone with access to a copy of the OGL and a PDF layout program.

D&D has been kitchen sink for a long time now.

I Don't think the average GM exerts them selves enough to cull what creatures are and aren't in their campaign. Nor do I think that they give it a single thought one way or the other.

Quote from: nDervish;1082977...instead of being selective about it for the sake of creating and maintaining a world which feels internally consistent....

Verisimilitude in modern fantasy, D&D included, is deader than disco.

And the majority of the current D&D fanbase just don't care.

Quote from: Jaeger;1083016Verisimilitude in modern fantasy, D&D included, is deader than disco.

And the majority of the current D&D fanbase just don't care.

[Luke] I care... [/Luke]

Seriously, I put a lot of work into creating a Kitchen Sink world where there was still only one native sapient species (everything else was either created by Men or from Men or came from elsewhere).

Half the trick is not make the present situation static. No tens of thousands of years of history where nothing much changes. For example, in my world everything's still in flux after a massive magical Cataclysm introduced a ton of non-indigenous species into the environment barely 200 years ago.

Some essentially bio-engineered species were created a couple thousand years ago, but were on the verge of extinction (Man ultimately being more adaptable than his creations) before the Cataclysm wiped out enough of humanity to give them another fighting chance (the beastmen were largely tribal with low population densities... humans dwelt in big modern cities that basically got hit with magic nukes and so lost much greater percentages of their people and infrastructure).

But if you advanced the timeline a couple thousand years a large number of those sapient species are no longer going to be around and others changed quite a bit (ex. the elves and dwarves will probably be bred right out of existence by then via half-elves and half-dwarves and eventually just humans with some elven and/or dwarven ancestry... the result of which is the humans live a bit longer and have a wider range of height/weight/builds and hair/eye/skin colors).

Quote from: Jaeger;1083016Verisimilitude in modern fantasy, D&D included, is deader than disco.

And the majority of the current D&D fanbase just don't care.

Disco isn't really dead - Mark Ronson's Uptown Funk from a few years ago is basically disco and it had a billion views on youtube; and its descendants are thriving

Beyond that, I think people who even use the term "verisimilitude" in the first place tend to be narrow minded and don't realize just how big the world is. How much variation there is on species, how many different things are in folklore. The world isn't just a kitchen sink, it's a mansion full of kitchens.