Quote from: Bren;923415Level 0 may be the mode, but it isn't the mean.

I dont know. Most orcs are pretty mean... :cool:

Well Median orcs have a Mean Mode.

Quote from: RPGPundit;923407The thing is, in D&D if you look purely from a stats perspective, humans are mostly all alike. They're 1HD creatures, with no particular special attacks.  The point is to treat the monsters as an AVERAGE example of their species (and in most campaign worlds, at least, the human average is a level 0 slob).  Making every monster encounter individually different is also not a great idea in my experience. Players, once familiar with a monster type, should be able to have some idea of what to expect.  This, in turn makes the non-average examples of monsters all the more special and surprising.

I'm not sure how much we're disagreeing. At least for my D&D game, I am still thinking that 90% of monster types should have 90% of their individuals roughly the same (where by roughly the same, I mean at most minor variations like in rolled hit points, or what weapons they have).

Still, I feel like there is an assumption of things being the same that is driven more by meta-game knowledge of D&D, rather than logically based on the world. That's in part because I'm running a mostly by-the-book game. i.e. It's set in sort of the default 5e setting of Forgotten Realms (new events have change the world, but the background hasn't been retconned). I'm also using a number of classic dungeons; and I'm not using significant rules variants. For the most part, I think this is working well, and by-the-book games work fine, but the exception is this issue - i.e. how much monsters are the same.

To be more specific in what I'm thinking:

1) I'm going to change a few creatures so that they're more like dragons - where there is a lot of variation in them. Specifically, I'm thinking of having slimes have no default size - so there could be a black pudding the size of a small dog, or a black pudding the size of an elephant. I am also thinking that I will give extraplanar chaos creatures like demons and slaadi a lot of variation - as a contrast to law creatures that will be by-the-book. If they're fighting 4 slaadi - even of the same type - each one might not have the same powers or the same number of limbs. Also, myconid spore servants is going to be a template that I apply to any monster, rather than using the listed spore servants - so there are spore servant duergar, spore servant drow, etc.

2) I'm going to start introducing more unique individual creatures, so that it's more like 10% of standard monsters will have significant variation. So, say, if they're facing 10 trolls, it's likely that there might be a markedly tougher leader, or one might be a markedly weaker runt.

I'll be explaining this change to my players, rather than springing it on them.

Quote from: jhkim;923489I'm not sure how much we're disagreeing. At least for my D&D game, I am still thinking that 90% of monster types should have 90% of their individuals roughly the same (where by roughly the same, I mean at most minor variations like in rolled hit points, or what weapons they have).

Still, I feel like there is an assumption of things being the same that is driven more by meta-game knowledge of D&D, rather than logically based on the world. That's in part because I'm running a mostly by-the-book game. i.e. It's set in sort of the default 5e setting of Forgotten Realms (new events have change the world, but the background hasn't been retconned). I'm also using a number of classic dungeons; and I'm not using significant rules variants. For the most part, I think this is working well, and by-the-book games work fine, but the exception is this issue - i.e. how much monsters are the same.

To be more specific in what I'm thinking:

1) I'm going to change a few creatures so that they're more like dragons - where there is a lot of variation in them. Specifically, I'm thinking of having slimes have no default size - so there could be a black pudding the size of a small dog, or a black pudding the size of an elephant. I am also thinking that I will give extraplanar chaos creatures like demons and slaadi a lot of variation - as a contrast to law creatures that will be by-the-book. If they're fighting 4 slaadi - even of the same type - each one might not have the same powers or the same number of limbs. Also, myconid spore servants is going to be a template that I apply to any monster, rather than using the listed spore servants - so there are spore servant duergar, spore servant drow, etc.

2) I'm going to start introducing more unique individual creatures, so that it's more like 10% of standard monsters will have significant variation. So, say, if they're facing 10 trolls, it's likely that there might be a markedly tougher leader, or one might be a markedly weaker runt.

I'll be explaining this change to my players, rather than springing it on them.

That all sounds alright.

Quote from: RPGPundit;924289That all sounds alright.

OK, that covers my current campaign.

That said, I'll shift the thread a little. In a hypothetical sword & sorcery type campaign, I'd consider ditching using D&D but ditching the Monster Manual entirely - and having every monster be unique. This could still handle sets of similar monsters (like a crowd of human thugs) by using a spreadsheet or similar to have a table to random-roll stats. Most monsters, though, would be weird chaos creatures or mutants - which could be appropriate for a S&S genre campaign.

That will take some time, rewriting the monsters Manuel like that.

Quote from: Headless;924874That will take some time, rewriting the monsters Manuel like that.

Not really.  Let's assume that JHKim is turning his campaign into a pure S&S setting, that simply means that most antagonists will be humans, meaning that he'll be using less monsters than the book provides.  The only time he uses them and he can use them as is, but they only need to be once.

The back section of the 5e MM has a listing of humanoid foes/allies, from bandits and their 'captains', to guards and spies, and changing their weapons doesn't really affect much...

In my games humans don't have a lot of variation either. Most are 2nd level at best, generally 0 level. Typical Citizen types, much of a muchness. The same for goblins, etc. One woods goblin is much like another. At least as far as mechanics go.

I will detail up the occasion NPC "monster" just to keep things interesting. But I don't use a lot of the D&D dungeon monsters, and when I do they tend to be unique creatures. The Eye Tyrant, not just another beholder.

I also allow fighter types the ability to size up potential foes before battle is joined. This can help make encounters a bit more survivable. "This band of habgoblins look well drilled and their captain seems at least as seasoned a warrior as you are." "The troll has the strength of several men. You could not best it in single combat, and are not sure if all of you together could defeat it."

Quote from: Headless;924874That will take some time, rewriting the monsters Manuel like that.

Is that the Mexican version of the Monster Manual?

Quote from: Headless;924874That will take some time, rewriting the monsters Manuel like that.

There can be only Juan!

Speaking of "Monster Manuels", one of the coolest details of the Spanish RPG "Aquelarre", set in a fantasy version of medieval Spain (and a MAJOR influence on Dark Albion) is that it has a monster section full of insanely weird monsters from Spanish legend.

The Basques in particular made hugely bizarre monsters. Part of their whole weird vibe, I guess, what with not being part of any other European culture and all.

I'm a big fan of customized monsters and mutations. I've been mashing my Gamma World with my OD&D for a long time.