General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
“The Blood of the monster is the doom of the unwary.”
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
“Fantasy, abandoned by reason, produces impossible monsters; united with it, she is the mother of the arts and the origin of marvels.”
“History is not the story of heroes entirely. It is often the story of cruelty and injustice and shortsightedness. There are monsters, there is evil...”
“… I prefer the monsters of my fancy to what is positively trivial.”
Synopsis: The Blood of Monsters is far more than the blood of simple animals, or the nerveless sap of tree limbs. The blood of the monster is a deep, potent, ancient, terrible thing, capable of warping the world, and either wondrously enabling, or viciously crippling and killing, the Hero. Beware the blood of the monster, and do not easily discard the tremendous potential it encloses within itself.
Essay: In myth it is often the case that the blood, tissues, organs, or parts of a monster have unique, if not astounding properties of their own, quite apart from those possessed by the whole or intact, living creature itself.
Yet far too often these additional (or inherent really) “monstrous characteristics” are overlooked (sometimes entirely) in fantasy, mythological, and magical gaming. Monsters are slain, their blood washes over the characters to no real effect, and the monstrous bodies or corpses thereafter simply discarded, as if they were the inconvenient, tiresome, or useless detritus of the true business of adventuring. No real consequences ensue from, or for, the slaying of monsters, from being in close proximity to them when they are killed, or from being washed and covered in the gore and curses and hatred and pollution and ferocity of their ultimate demise. The death of monsters becomes a mere mathematical and mechanical expression of character survival beyond beastly endurance, rather than a fascinating cosmic struggle between weird and uncanny physical, supernatural, and magical forces and the life-force of men. And the killing of monsters likewise has either no additional benefit, nor any additional consequence, other than the taking of their treasure or the removal of their objection to whatever goal(s) the hero currently or ultimately pursues. In short the monster is far less a real monster, far less a real threat, far less weird and far less dangerous, than if hunting and killing monsters implied nothing more mysterious, fantastic, and potentially lethal than a mere exercise in hit point reduction to “less than zero.” As a matter of fact killing most monsters in many role play games implies a level of danger and consequence that is exactly that, less than zero. Once slain or nearly slain a monster is then no more of a real threat than the paper-tiger number stats used to summarize his imaginary existence. But is this really a proper expression of the idea of monstrousness? In the imagination? In myth? Or even in-game?
Certainly not so in myth, where the blood of monsters and weird beings often has dramatic (and even sometimes life-long) effects upon the heroes who encounter such marvels, perhaps even upon nearby observers, other monsters, or the very landscape itself. In this respect I think myth is often far more engaging, richer in content and implication, tremendously more interesting, and far more versatile than typical fantasy (or other genres of) role play gaming. Monsters actually mean things in myth. They are not simply the enemy soldier du jour, dressed in some fantastic garb of hoary yet impotent flesh or rotting, undead sheets of nothingness. They are not merely “tactical challenges” as would be the case as if an infantry battalion in a wargame were suddenly compressed into a single fearsome body and sent forth to fight tooth and claw against armed adventurers. Instead monsters are “danger incarnate,” they are a warping of the woof of existence, their being alters and changes things around them, they bend reality, sicken or extend it, they reshape nature (physical, mental, and spiritual) into a monstrosity of devastating potential. In myth (from which spring the sources of the idea and shapes and names and forms of monsters in role play games) monsters are dangerous, deadly, uncanny, they distort the nature of the things they encounter, and they do all of this both within and well-beyond the very narrow confines of combat. It seems to me then that the monster should be returned to his more natural (or unnatural, depending upon your point of view) state(s) of being, a being that exudes, reflects and engenders corruption, weirdness, lethality, and real, unremitting and unrepentant peril. Both in life, and in death. *
In short I am advocating the idea that even the blood, tissues, and corpses of monsters might very well, and even in some cases definitely should, have effects both upon the characters encountering them, and upon the entire atmosphere and environment of the role-play milieu. That monsters become far more than mere combat automatons, far more than just tactical challenges, far more than an enemy in a rubber mask and a plastic suit of armor who can execute feats of multiple backflips or shoot acid from a naphtha gland in his mouth.
Monsters are not simply monsters because they look weird, because men find them to be distasteful, evil, ugly, frightening, gigantic, or unique adversaries. Monsters are also monsters because of their peculiarly monstrous qualities, which extend far beyond motive and appearance and down to the very marrow of their bones, as well as throughout the blood or ichor that washes unseen through their twisted veins. And that when this blood (and/or body) becomes exposed to the world at large, when it stains the flesh of the hero, and when the bones of monsters litter the landscape, other things occur of definite and noticeable effect. Things that are sometimes wondrous, things that are sometimes terrible, occasionally even more horrifying in implication or outcome than the threat of the original monster itself. (I use the term monster in this respect in a very generalized sense. Of course the same “monstrous properties” might be said to exist for supernatural beings and alien creatures, in horror/supernatural/adventure/superhero, and sci-fi gaming. And I would hardly argue against the same types of monstrous properties I am advocating for mythological and fantasy based monsters is such cases. Rather I would just expect that given the nature of the creature in question that such properties would manifest differently, but also quite obviously, in those other types of circumstances.)
With that in mind I am going to suggest some effects that will result from the injury, death, or shedding of the blood of uncanny monsters. Some of these effects will be light, some dramatic, some wondrous, and some terrible. Feel free to add your own ideas. This is an Interactive Essay on the notion of “Monstrosity.”
The Corpus Dejecti: First of all, let me speak about the remains or parts of a monster’s body (whether or not the creature itself has survived as a result of loss of these assets). The remains or parts of a monster are valuable because of the unique properties they bestow both upon the monster itself, and anyone else either fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, to gain control of or contact such remains. To that end let me detail just some of the possible parts of a monster’s body that could be invaluable, a treasure in itself, or horrifically disastrous, an unshakeable and lifelong curse.
The Blood
The Brains
The Eye or eyes
The Third Eye or the Secret or Invisible Eye
The Tongue
The Horn or horns
The Scales
The Claws or nails
The Heart
The Liver
The Lung
The Glands
The Tears
The Ichor
The Tail
The Foot
The Hand
The Paw
The Snout
The Jaw
The Ear
The Tendril or Tentacle
The Wings or feathers
The Fin
The Bile
The Stolen Part
The Flesh
The Muscles
The Excretions The prized and blood or ichor stained possessions of a monster
Each of these parts might render some beneficial aid to the possessor, or might render some monstrous curse. In the case of especially powerful or weird monsters, it might very well render both, and/or multiple effects.
In addition such tissues or remains can be prepared, modified, presented, and intentionally used (with the right knowledge) for other employments, such as:
Creating inks and parchments
Creating Book materials
Creating unique potions
Creating unique magical items
Creating technologies, machines, artifacts, and devices
Creating unique traps and tricks
Creating illusions
Creating unique spells and powers
Disrupting other things, objects, places, or events
Dispelling magics
Enhancing or disrupting miracles
Augmenting or disrupting mental or psychological powers
Augmenting or disrupting physical capabilities
Augmenting or disrupting spiritual capabilities
Invention, Design, and Craft
Summoning or turning away other monsters
Summoning or turning away the undead
Summoning or turning away demons and devils
Foreseeing possible futures
Solving puzzles
Overcoming obstacles
Developing new scripts, ciphers, and codes
Gaining control over, or freeing other creatures
Gaining control over, or freeing spirits
Communicating secretly and/or over a distance
Creating Glammors
Creating powerful blessings or curses
Making objects tough or nearly indestructible
Destroying other objects
Extending or shortening life
Curing or causing disease
Creating or controlling intense emotional states
Charming others
Exciting Love, or Hate
Allowing flight
Healing or preserving health
The Effects – I will divide effects into obviously beneficial and obviously malignant effects. Some effects may seem to fall into both categories. Some effects can be viewed as blessings, others as curses. These effects can occur on the level of the individual, or on the cosmic level (effecting the world at large), or both, when the blood, tissues, and other remains or parts of a monster become exposed to a hero or the world through direct contact. These effects are not intentionally controllable but occur as a result of the unique properties of the monsters interacting with the unique nature of the individual or circumstance to which the blood or remains of the monster are exposed. These effects can also be acute, immediate, temporary, chronic, delayed, or life-long and permanent (unless somehow brought under control or removed).
Beneficial Effects:
Magical powers increase
Sensory Capabilities improve
One can read the thoughts of others
One can know the hearts of others
New capabilities are gained
One becomes stronger
One becomes wiser
One becomes more intelligent
One becomes more charismatic
One becomes more resilient
One becomes faster or more dexterous
One’s flesh becomes invulnerable to certain things
One rarely tires or rarely needs to sleep
One needs little food
One needs little water
One becomes powerfully intuitive
One becomes prophetic
One becomes clever and ingenious
One can speak with monsters
Malignant Effects:
Magical powers decrease
Sensory capabilities become clouded, restricted, or confused
One’s own thoughts become scattered, confused, and open to suggestion
One becomes unable to understand the motives of others
Old capabilities are lost or diminish
One becomes weaker or feeble
One becomes more foolish, reckless, or unwise
One becomes denser, slow-witted, or more stupid
One becomes repugnant or repulsive to others
One becomes drained, lethargic, or inflexible
One becomes slow of body and reflex
One is easily injured or sickened
One exhausts easily and often, or is chronically anemic
One becomes uncontrollably gluttonous
One becomes a drunkard or an addict
One becomes uncontrollably arrogant and prideful
One becomes uncontrollably envious and covetous
One becomes uncontrollably lustful
One becomes uncontrollably angry, petty, and ill-temperate
One becomes uncontrollably greedy
One becomes uncontrollably despairing and cynical
One becomes uncontrollably slothful and lazy
One becomes uncontrollably bloodthirsty and vicious
One becomes easily duped and made fool of
One becomes blind
One becomes deaf
One becomes unable to smell
One becomes unable to taste
One becomes leprous
One becomes mute
One contracts a chronic and perhaps incurable disease or condition
Blessings:
Good fortune is enjoyed
Crops become plentiful
Good and pleasant weather
Enemies avoid invasion or warfare
Water supplies are clean and plentiful
The earth is enriched, plants and animals thrive
The natural environment becomes filled with beneficial magic
Wealth increases
New resources are discovered, old ones are easier to exploit
Miracles occur
The Gift of Tongues – other languages can be understood, or the language of other creatures can be understood
Powerful and beneficial creatures or allies rein habit the area
Trade prospers
Resistances to malignant forces develop
Curses:
Water becomes polluted, fouled, and poisoned
The air becomes poisonous and retched
Foul, dangerous, catastrophic, violently stormy weather
Natural disasters abound
Plagues become common
Droughts develop and wild fires break out
The earth becomes weak, polluted, unyielding and unproductive
The natural environment becomes resistant to beneficial magic or open to malignant magic or other influences
Wealth decreases and resources become depleted
Treasures corrupt or corrode
Misfortune multiplies or lingers
Confusion and misunderstandings of speech and language
Malignant serpents, insects, and other creatures spring from the ground
Warfare and Civil warfare erupt
Vulnerabilities to evil develop
The Death Curse of the Monster: Sometimes at or near the moment of their death particularly powerful, intelligent, and malignant monsters might curse an individual, a party of people, or even an entire region or nation with an especially effective and malicious curse. In such cases extreme and immediate counter-measures must be taken, sometimes even involving the undertaking of a complicated Quest, it order to nullify or reverse this curse. Otherwise, if the curse is not counteracted it may very well unfold as prophesied in a most destructive and devastating manner.
Conclusion: Make use of monsters, their blood, and their remains in a far more interesting, productive, potent, and imaginative way to reflect their real and inherent potential for creating both endless wonder, and appalling desolation.
* I use the term uncanny poetically. I do not mean to imply that a monster must be supernatural (in the gaming or mythological sense) for its blood to have weird or powerful effects.
The issue we come upon here is simple - in mythology, in general your hero has a limited number of encounters with monsters. He or she fights a few over the course of their career, sure, but a D&D character might fight tens to hundreds of monsters per level - thousands in a career.
When monsters are rare, it makes sense to have the parts continue to be interseting and mysterious. But when they are the bread and butter of your existence, you have a bit of a plausibility problem. If every monster has special parts, it ceases to be special. But if only some do, why only those specific ones?
The issue we come upon here is simple - in mythology, in general your hero has a limited number of encounters with monsters. He or she fights a few over the course of their career, sure, but a D&D character might fight tens to hundreds of monsters per level - thousands in a career.
When monsters are rare, it makes sense to have the parts continue to be interseting and mysterious. But when they are the bread and butter of your existence, you have a bit of a plausibility problem. If every monster has special parts, it ceases to be special. But if only some do, why only those specific ones?
This, mostly.
Also, if they all have special parts with special properties they will be harvested, either to be used or sold. AD&D sort of did this with the material components for spells (and scrolls). And it could screw things up for the GM if the characters suddenly decided to start harvesting when they hadn't before. (I know some GMs who had to do some fancy footwork when the party of the moment decided to go into the monster parts business, bearing in mind that D&D has never done finance well.)
__________________ Scrag 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out!
When monsters are rare, it makes sense to have the parts continue to be interseting and mysterious. But when they are the bread and butter of your existence, you have a bit of a plausibility problem. If every monster has special parts, it ceases to be special. But if only some do, why only those specific ones?
I think you've got a point here Umbran.
I personally am not a big fan of the thousands of orcs monster model. I prefer my monsters more rare, and far more dangerous. Substituting human monsters (like brigands, raiders, criminals, etc.) when I require quantities.
But in cases of games where the model is different than my preferred one, then I think Nifft is right too. In cases like that only powerful or uncanny (using the term loosely - I think that's what he's driving at with solos) monsters have to have unique or powerful effects.
But personally I wouldn't let on to my players what effect any particular monster or monster remains may possess. They don't find that out til they encounter it. And since every monster is unique in my game the effects are not predictable.
But with big or powerful monsters even the blood of two ancient blue dragons (as an example) could have different effects upon others when encountered. The blood of those two blue dragons could even have different effects upon the same individual. I'm not for formalizing and formulating and regulating it strictly, as much as I am for individualizing it. But others could work it differently. According to their way of operating.
Anyways, I'm kinda writ out for the moment. My eyes are blurry.
I personally am not a big fan of the thousands of orcs monster model.
I prefer my monsters more rare, and far more dangerous. Substituting human monsters (like brigands, raiders, criminals, etc.) when I require quantities.
It isn't just the issue of the occasional orc horde. Even if ever encounter is with only a few individuals, you have a problem. Ten to thirteen encounters per level. By level ten, you've had 100 to 130 encounters. Even if they've all be with individual solos, that's a hundred critters. Meanwhile Sigfried and Beowulf together only ever handled a handful of monsters.
The problem is this - in the numbers D&D commonly uses, monsters are not very "uncanny". They are fairly common, even supposedly big and powerful ones. It is all well and good to say that you're using the term "uncanny" in a poetic way, but it comes down to having some sort of separation between the uncanny and the normal beasts.
One way to do it is to have a campaign where actual monsters really are rare, and most of the antagonists are human or humanoid. But how else to manage it?
One way to do it is to have a campaign where actual monsters really are rare, and most of the antagonists are human or humanoid. But how else to manage it?
- Lots of human antagonists
- Many skill challenges in place of fights
- Some or most combats are non-lethal (e.g. bar brawls, overpowering guardian critters without killing them)
- Magic critters, when "killed", actually dissipate to re-form their elemental / abyssal / divine / fey / shadow / far realm home. Only by killing them in that (far, far away) home do you get to perform arcane taxidermy.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
The problem is this - in the numbers D&D commonly uses, monsters are not very "uncanny". They are fairly common, even supposedly big and powerful ones. It is all well and good to say that you're using the term "uncanny" in a poetic way, but it comes down to having some sort of separation between the uncanny and the normal beasts.
I think I get ya now. You're defining uncanny in an entirely game-oriented quantitative way. That wasn't what I was driving at myself, but I see your point.
In cases like that I'd just leave it up to the DM to define what he or she thinks best (as far as numbers wise, and as far as what actually qualifies as uncanny) according to the requirements of their milieu, setting, world, etc. Just as right now its up to DMs to decide how much treasure to give, or how many and what kinds of monsters (and how they act) to pit the characters up against.
I mean I can suggest Beneficial effects, and Curses, and whatnot, and I did, but those are just suggestions. A DM could invent their own system, or modify what I suggested, etc. I'm not laying down you must do it this way markers, just suggestions about how to change things around so monsters are far more dangerous, and have far greater impact overall as monsters, on a setting or a game.
As for our game I've never run into monster taxidermy as Ed suggested, because, well, the remains of monsters are far too damagers for that kinda thing in my setting. If the remains of monsters trigger curses that can affect entire areas, or people groups, or can have malignant and life-long effects upon characters then most characters (and nations) wanna stay away from trade in monster corpses. You wanna destroy those remains. Even evil guys don't wanna necessarily risk suffering diseases and loss of abilities from being splattered in the blood of a monster, or having a monster eye relic make them go eventually blind. (Yes, the invisible - while it lives - Third Eye of a Beholder - just as an example - will let someone who places it on their head see many things that were previously impossible to see, but over time it makes you go physically blind, and also slowly drives you made with pain and paranoia.) That's why they are monsters, they possess and promise to others unique potential and power, but exact malignant and far higher costs in other ways. The danger to characters comes in when in the course of killing them you become vulnerable to the dangers their blood, corpses, and remains expose you too. You become warped, or tainted (I'm not just using that term in a gaming sense), or reduced in capability, though sometimes in trade you may gain an ability no one else possesses, such as the ability to accurately foresee the future whenever you wish, or becoming invulnerable to fire. You might gain the ability to understand the languages of animals, but every time a person speaks to you you hear what they say only as a lie. You might, for instance, in killing a troll get covered in its gore, and thereafter find you are immune to iron blades, but wounds now take twice as long to heal, often becoming infected, fire does far more damage to you than before, and every night you suffer exhausting and horrific nightmares. Those are just examples of how things like that are potentially dangerous and exact costs. Just possibilities. I'm not trying to limit the imaginations of whoever is running the game, just spur them on to other possibilities.
Now if you had a setting where monsters and the remains of monsters transferred to the possessor only benefits, or several benefits with only mild malignant effects, then yeah, I can see an underground or black market developing, maybe even an open market, on monster remains. That's not what I'm suggesting at all, I'm starting out from myth where monster blood and remains are generally dangerous - very, very dangerous. Part of their overall monstrousness.
In my setting, usually only mild benefits with far more malignant effects follow from too much exposure to the blood and death-throes of uncanny monsters. The more powerful the monster, the worse it is. So characters develop new methods of killing, to try and mitigate these effects or to kill at a distance if possible. Monsters also use the fact that they know they have malignant effects to their advantage, as a defense mechanism, and as an escape method. Powerful and intelligent monsters in my setting would rarely fight to the death, there's just nothing in it for them to do that. And nothing in it for the characters to rush in, chop up a dragon, get sprayed by their blood and gore, and pinned down with its death curse. Rather, you'd wanna avoid that with cleverness and craft if you could. But other people could work it different, according to the needs of their setting or game.
Now I have had characters use monster remains as a weapon against other monsters, and occasionally against evil NPCs. And I've had evil NPCs use monster remains against characters, as a weapon. Most of the time players and characters don't wanna screw with the dangers, but sometimes remains like that can be a powerful weapon or even just a scare tactic. And over time in my setting monster remains can lose potency, and of course they can be destroyed. Curses on an entire area can be broken by killing a monster as well - that is monsters can inflict not just death curses, but curse an area or a people just by being around them. So sometimes you can break curses by killing monsters as well. But as I said these are just possibilities of how to play it. I'd leave stuff like that up to the DM and to the particular demands of the individual setting. I'm sure people could come up with a lot different ideas than mine, like this one Nifft did:
Quote:
Magic critters, when "killed", actually dissipate to re-form their elemental / abyssal / divine / fey / shadow / far realm home. Only by killing them in that (far, far away) home do you get to perform arcane taxidermy.
I'm pretty sure I would have never approached the problem with an idea like that. Maybe, but I doubt it.
But to reiterate, I wouldn't tell the individual DM exactly what constitutes an uncanny or powerful monster, or how exactly to work the "monster is really dangerous" problem. I'd leave that up to them to define. Me personally I wouldn't be interested in inflicting a set in stone mechanic when I don't know how their setting functions. Maybe think of it more as "try this new kinda wing design" (actually it is a very ancient wing design, I didn't invent it) but fit it to your aircraft as you need, or it works best.
Well, I gotta new case to work. Probably be gone a few days. Maybe a week or so. Might can respond when I can, maybe this weekend.
Flesh it out (get it? flesh it out?) among yourselves guys. Maybe instead I should say bloody yourselves up.
In any case see ya later. I gotta bug in a few.
Shelf life, return of investment, and "season" could counter for when monsters are not rare.
By shelf life, the blood or part has to be fresh and will loose any special abilities quickly.
Return of Investment, the amount of the product needed for amount of work is not worth it. Kill a 1000 orcs and get an extra year of life. (okay some would say cool)
Season - the product is only good at some time in the life of the creature in question. Only dragon that are 300 years old or during mating season.
__________________ Signature:
All I need is minions and I would rule the world.
I think I get ya now. You're defining uncanny in an entirely game-oriented quantitative way. That wasn't what I was driving at myself, but I see your point.
No. I'm thinking about a fluff-oriented, qualitative way.
When you are Sigfried, and you only ever fight one or two dragons in your entire life, sure, the dragon is uncanny. But if you fight a dozen monsters a week, they're all going to blur together. Why is one of them uncanny, and another not. They both have weird powers beyond mortal ken, right? So why is one special? Did it happen touch the Great McGuffin Crystal, or something?
I don't require this be quantitative and game-oriented. I just require that it make some sort of sense in the game world.
Pillaging corpses for alchemical ingredients is a time honored D&D tradition as well as a common trope of fantasy literature.
I think you have to be careful of several things:
1) Don't make every monster a walking potion. It's not so bad if the guy with some alchemy skill, a few herbs, and the brew potion feat can turn every corpse into a potion (in fact, that's kinda cool IMO), but if you don't need any skill to do it and the effects go beyond those of ordinary potions things can get out of hand in a hurry.
2) Don't leave the value of a corpse undefined and vague. Understand that if corpses become treasure, you need some idea of what you are actually handing out or else its quickly going to invalidate assumptions about PC wealth. For my part, I'd be more interested in a table that simply said, "Choice alchemical body parts and regeants, weight and value" and listed that for each relevant monster, so that I'd know that X lbs. of Manticore body parts was worth Y g.p. After that, a list of which potions corresponded to which monster body parts would be hand, that is just what can you make out of this stuff if you find yourself wanting to make a potion on the cheap.
3) Don't forget just how many monsters are out there. Don't make body part collection so important to the game that everyone is hauling around a couple hundred pounds of dissected corpses and embalming equipment. The system is supposed to be fun, and not a burden.
4) The general idea of a curse (or possibly positive effect) resulting from the death of a monster is a good one, but if you aren't careful its going to be a very unfun one. If every time you kill a monster, it results in a powerful curse, its just going to feel like the DM screwing the players after a while. In D&D, I think you have to make some distinction between 'ordinary' monsters, and 'monsters of Legend'. It's really those 'monsters of Legend', the ones that you've taken the trouble to name, give some history to, and perhaps even give a personality to that ought to be numinous, mysterious, and for which the PC's will accept that the death of the monster of legend is an epic event. The death of some lesser monster need not be accompanied by any great fanfare.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
Last edited by Celebrim; 7th October 2009 at 05:45 PM..
No. I'm thinking about a fluff-oriented, qualitative way.
When you are Sigfried, and you only ever fight one or two dragons in your entire life, sure, the dragon is uncanny. But if you fight a dozen monsters a week, they're all going to blur together. Why is one of them uncanny, and another not. They both have weird powers beyond mortal ken, right? So why is one special? Did it happen touch the Great McGuffin Crystal, or something?
I don't require this be quantitative and game-oriented. I just require that it make some sort of sense in the game world.
Well, I think I'd leave that up to whoever is designing their world and game. Most worlds for instance have monsters and economic systems for instance, but the game rules don't tell you exactly how you must structure them. That's up to the individual game to decide. How you make sense of something, like the money system for instance, will depend on how the world is structured.
Quote:
Pillaging corpses for alchemical ingredients is a time honored D&D tradition as well as a common trope of fantasy literature.
I think you have to be careful of several things:
1) Don't make every monster a walking potion. It's not so bad if the guy with some alchemy skill, a few herbs, and the brew potion feat can turn every corpse into a potion (in fact, that's kinda cool IMO), but if you don't need any skill to do it and the effects go beyond those of ordinary potions things can get out of hand in a hurry.
2) Don't leave the value of a corpse undefined and vague. Understand that if corpses become treasure, you need some idea of what you are actually handing out or else its quickly going to invalidate assumptions about PC wealth. For my part, I'd be more interested in a table that simply said, "Choice alchemical body parts and regeants, weight and value" and listed that for each relevant monster, so that I'd know that X lbs. of Manticore body parts was worth Y g.p. After that, a list of which potions corresponded to which monster body parts would be hand, that is just what can you make out of this stuff if you find yourself wanting to make a potion on the cheap.
3) Don't forget just how many monsters are out there. Don't make body part collection so important to the game that everyone is hauling around a couple hundred pounds of dissected corpses and embalming equipment. The system is supposed to be fun, and not a burden.
4) The general idea of a curse (or possibly positive effect) resulting from the death of a monster is a good one, but if you aren't careful its going to be a very unfun one. If every time you kill a monster, it results in a powerful curse, its just going to feel like the DM screwing the players after a while. In D&D, I think you have to make some distinction between 'ordinary' monsters, and 'monsters of Legend'. It's really those 'monsters of Legend', the ones that you've taken the trouble to name, give some history to, and perhaps even give a personality to that ought to be numinous, mysterious, and for which the PC's will accept that the death of the monster of legend is an epic event. The death of some lesser monster need not be accompanied by any great fanfare.
I wouldn't necessarily argue with any of that. Like so much in RPGs I'd leave the details to be worked out by the DM, GM, or game participants.
Of course when I made the thread the idea of monsters being far more truly dangerous was what I was shooting at. The idea of "monster taxidermy" hadn't even really entered my mind. Not as it seems to have been thought of here, more like a modern industrial exercise or occupation.
But of course other people will think of all kinds of things you didn't when you mention something. Some good, some bad, some just plain different than what you were thinking of.
There was a setting for 2e that differentiated monsters (and people) of legend from the common herd called "Birthright". In that campaign setting, there are both monsters and Monsters, and your ideas would be appropriate for the Monsters.
RCFG uses "champion class creatures" to denote beings in whom Fate or the Gods have taken a special interest. This includes, of course, all PCs, and whatever NPCs and monsters the GM desires. Your ideas would be appropriate for some champion class creatures in that system.
And, of course, some campaign milieus might use far fewer "monsters" than others.
Don't let herd mentality drag you down!
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Of course when I made the thread the idea of monsters being far more truly dangerous was what I was shooting at. The idea of "monster taxidermy" hadn't even really entered my mind. Not as it seems to have been thought of here, more like a modern industrial exercise or occupation.
I recognize that, but I was speaking as someone who had gone at least part way down this path before.
I think you recognize what you are trying to avoid when you say that the effects are not intended to be controllable, but I think that you'll find that when you systematize anything that it becomes controllable.
When you start talking about the body parts of slain monsters having magical effects, even if those effects are random, what you are in essence saying is that a monster drops random treasure. Indeed, we can call these corpses random magical items as they will, once you can figure out what they do and which are usuable and which are simply dangerous, will be used just like magic items. Indeed, figuring out what they do and which are usuable and which are simply dangerous in some ways merely returns magic items somewhat to their Gygaxian roots.
In a majority of groups I've played with, once it becomes clear that extra treasure is to be had in the form of body parts, the group will immediately begin taking steps to maximize that profit. With something like the system you describe it would be:
1) Prepare alot of detect curse, detect magic, and remove curse spells. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of PC's. Whatever barriers you try to erect to stop PC's from doing something generally not only prove insufficient, but generally convince the players that doing it is really worthwhile. It's like putting a big obviously hard to open door in a dungeon. The players will generally assume that the harder the door is to open, the more worthwhile it probably is to do so.
2) Try to convince you that identify and analyze dweomer spells will work on body parts, and if not rely on old fashioned trial and error techniques to identify things.
3) For any given monster, attempt multiple trials on body parts, hopefully trying to get you to make multiple random rolls for "The Blood, The Brains, The Eye or eyes, Tongue, The Horn or horns, The Scales, The Claws or nails, The Heart, etc." Each roll is essentially a random trip through the magic item tables. Some will turn out lethal, but some will turn out advantageous. The lethal or inconveinent will be identified and hopefully neutralized.
4) Learn taxidermy. Preserve as much of a corpse as possible to haul out of the wilderness to be sold or utilized at a later point. The problem is that while you never necessarily intend industrialized monster harvesting, your players live in a modern, industrial society, and are motivated strongly to maximize their character's power. Even good RPer's IME engage in at least a little min/maxing and survival mode behavior, if only because they love their characters and don't want to lose them.
The risk here of course is that in an attempt to make monsters more monsterous, numinous, and horrific, you'll just end up comoditizing them further. Certainly that's what happened to dragons in my campaign where I attempted something of the sort. It very much reminded me of this:
Quote:
"Dragon whiskers and dragon toes
a dragon tooth and a dragon nose
Every little piece
Every little piece
We could make a million
by slicing him and dicing him
We could sell every little shell
There's enough of him to go around
Money, money and money
by the pound
Every little piece
Every little piece
I can take a scissor
and clip him up and rip him up
Every little part is a work of art
Think of what a dragon heart would bring
Wrapped up in a ribbon and a string
Dragon liver can cure a cold
dragon powder grows hair
With dragon blood you'll never grow old
Every item is covered with gold
Every item is covered with gold
Every little piece
Every little piece
Dragon you're my wagon to destiny
you're the key
Every little shred moving me ahead
Every dream of mine will be fulfilled
What a dragon business we can build
Dragon cartilage keeps you thin
dragon fat is for burns
a dragon tear will clear up your skin
Watch the profits come rolling in"
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
While it all sounds very nice, there's another drawback. If the blood of the monsters is for example, powerful but unholy, having possibly detrimental effects to people wouldn't it be bad for melee classes?
They're the ones that get splattered with blood because they're closer to the monster.
While it all sounds very nice, there's another drawback. If the blood of the monsters is for example, powerful but unholy, having possibly detrimental effects to people wouldn't it be bad for melee classes?
They're the ones that get splattered with blood because they're closer to the monster.
It would indeed be bad for anybody who got splashed by the blood of a particular monster whose blood causes very bad effects. That is after all the very point. And whereas I hadn't specifically thought of unholy in this context (I'm assuming you mean some specific gaming effect of unholy), I would agree some monsters would have unholy existences, and unholy remains. (Which is a good point about their dangerousness more widely speaking.) Since you mentioned unholy then, one might consider that the remains of some undead (some who have no blood at all) might wither away at "death, or at the end of their ultimate semi-corporeal existence," while some others might not. The body of a vampire might disintegrate visibly, entirely, or at least in part. That of a mummy just leave behind a semi-desiccated corpse, just depends on the situation and how that particular world is set up to function.
But like all problems in life, or even purely imaginary problems, when there is a given situation, there are ways to mitigate, influence, or alter the situation. That is part of the genius of problem solving and what makes good games interesting in my opinion. For instance one way to approach the monster problem is just to add on hit points and damage-done-tallies ad infinitum. (You make a monster more dangerous by giving him 1500 hit points rather than 150, and by making him do 100 hit points of damage per attack, instead of 10 per attack.) Danger then becomes wholly a tactical battle-matter. Danger is expressed primarily though combat capabilities. That's one way. That is the common in-game method now (I am speaking primarily of game design methods here, rather than particular world or milieu settings, where I am sure there is a much greater range of game-experimentation), in many respects. Everyone knows the basic armor class, hit point totals, capabilities, etc. of most any monster. If they don't they shortly can. It is very similar to wargaming in that you have readily available intelligence based upon scouted or well known troop dispositions, technical descriptions of weapon systems, information on fire-rates, combat experience of the opposing forces, and so forth and so on. The point is you know the enemy, you're not really fighting a monster (in the sense of the unknown), you're fighting a combat detachment dressed in scales and horn instead of ablative armor, and with a fire nozzle in it's mouth instead of a fifty caliber or a flamethrower mounted on a mobile combat system. So in that sense monsters are simply, and rarely much more, than "dispositions of combat power." So that's one way to handle the "what is a monster really problem," and I wouldn't necessarily argue that's a bad thing in and of itself, because one of the ways monsters are indeed dangerous, is that they are physically dangerous and potentially lethal in combat. But that's just one way to make them dangerous, and it's a very self-limiting way. Because it limits their "threat disposition" to being almost entirely a mechanical exercise in "combat capabilities and potential physical lethality." (As a side it also reduces all less physically and combat threatening monsters to little more than tactical nuisances, and assures magic is the only real way they can be truly threatening. But a truly clever and cunning lesser monster could be a much greater and more dangerous threat if he were dangerous in ways other than just an expression of his combat capability stats. As a matter of fact if played in the right way he could be terrifically dangerous, even uncannily so.)
There are then other ways to make monsters dangerous, when and where appropriate. One such is to make monsters dangerous psychologically (both in a general sense, and directly to the psyches of individual heroes). Another is to make them uncanny (in the sense I implied in the original post, but one need not limit uncanny to just my thread-sense of the definition of uncanny), so that close proximity is a threat in and of itself. Another is to make them dangerous by being unpredictable, and therefore it is difficult to develop effective tactical and strategic preparations against them. (An extension of unpredictability is to assure the players do not know exact dispositions and statistical information on given monsters.) Another by being Un-Holy (as you suggested) and all that implies. Another by being unique (not every eye stalk of a Beholder does the same things as the eye-stalks of a different Beholder), and therefore prepared Intel is difficult to gain or develop, and information is sparse, confused, or incorrect. Another is to make monsters intelligent and shrewd, so that they have well developed strategic and tactical capabilities and plans of their own. In that way they have employed others to fight, have raised armies, have set traps, misdirected their enemies, and so forth and so on. These other methods (and I've just named some of them) are more strategic than tactical, though they also require clever and flexible tactics in order to execute a viable and effective overall strategy, which you also usually have to devise along the way, maybe in an entirely ad hoc fashion. (In my opinion though, the very best way to employ and play monsters is as composite beings, as much as is appropriate and necessary for the particular creature in question. That is, as much as befits the particular monster, do not make the monster merely physically dangerous, or merely psychologically dangerous, but make them dangerous in as many different ways as possible. For instance, as an example, when playing a Rakshasa you make that monster physically dangerous, and magically dangerous, and psychologically dangerous, and intellectually dangerous, and uniquely dangerous, uncannily dangerous, and unpredictably dangerous. By making monsters dangerous in more than one way, you make them truly and even viciously dangerous. That idea goes beyond just the scope of the original post, of course, and is something I intend to expound upon in another thread about monsters called What Makes Monsters Truly Dangerous?, but I think it related enough to my general position to mention here in passing.)
But your overall observation is true. The blood or remains of uncanny monsters would be dangerous to close order combatants, or to anyone else near them. Then again that is what adaptation and cleverness and guile and craft is all about. When Perseus slew Medusa he didn't follow a normative pattern of rush in, see monster, have big bloody fight, kill monster. He faced a dangerous tactical and psychological and supernatural challenge and he adapted himself to the satiation. Any problem can be overcome with the proper and the clever application of available tools and technology (and magic - in fantasy realms) and strategy. The Medusa was extremely dangerous, and Perseus nevertheless overcame her using the proper strategy, and implements. Herakles overcame the Hydra. But certainly not by brute force alone, (alone brute force would have assured his defeat, not the monster's defeat) though he used brute force as one pincer of his overall method of attack. Perseus cut off the Medusa's head, and that was force application as well, but it was certainly not force that placed him in a position to kill her, that was craft and shrewdness and preparation.
So if you have a monster in whom you can gain some preliminary Intel, then you can prepare an effective strategy (and new defensive measures as well), adapting to the dangers to which you find yourself exposed. Of course you cannot overcome those dangers if you attack the Medusa in the same way you would attack a goblin. Then again in this sense a goblin is not truly uncanny, the Medusa is. Rushing into Melee does not mean though that you need approach every single instance of melee in the same manner (by the same tactical methods), or with the same strategic objective. If my players suspect a really dangerous and uncanny monster, they adapt methods. Or devise new ones. Both to survive, and to be effective. They change their "Danger and Risk stance." For instance in fighting a drunken brigand, someone who could kill you given the right set of circumstances, one would take one kind of danger and risk stance based on a realistic assessment of the possibilities, the inherent dangers, what you think your opponent could do, and so forth. The opponent projects a certain kind of danger, a certain level and type of threat. Facing a manticore on the other hand is an entirely different tactical proposition implying entirely different risks and dangers. However if the manticore is lowered to merely the level of a dozen brigands, because his only real threat as a monster is of being a combat threat, then to me he is no monster at all, other than in the sense of being "big." He becomes nothing more less than a "big combat threat," and large in size. His monstrosity is reduced entirely to "dangerous fighting squad dressed in fur, bat-wings, and a rubber face." For ammunition he throws iron spikes, not lead rounds or spent uranium. And that is, unfortunately, about the entire extent of his dangerousness and his "monstrosity" within the parameters of far too many game design structures.
The point is generally speaking that every form of experimentation and alteration (and especially improvement) to a given set of operating parameters leads to new capabilities, and correspondingly to a new set of problems which must be necessarily balanced or mitigated by additional new methodologies. For instance the invention of the jet engine (and plane) provided many new opportunities in aircraft and travel capabilities. The demands of the jet engine however superceded the outmoded fuselage and wing capabilities of the older style aircraft body designs. Was the solution then to abandon the much better jet engine because the previous superstructure designs were unable to cope with new performance demands? No, the answer was to design new aircraft frames which could handle the additional G-force and maneuvering demands placed upon the aircraft by much improved power plants.
Is the answer then to the more dangerous in-game monster to say, the problems are insurmountable or will lead to this or that particular difficultly? By very fact of existence the far more dangerous monster will definitely and certainly lead to new problems and risks and threat levels (in a whole host of ways) and will of course require new methods of addressing these higher demand requirements. Far more clever methods of risk mitigation and problem solving on the part of both player and DM. But then again that is the way progress is made, and also what problem solving is all about, which to me is a large and natural part of the purpose of role play gaming. We play for enjoyment, of course, but also to solve problems. All of life (real, virtual, internal, external, and even imaginary) is, to one extent or another, problem solving. The bigger, the more imposing, the more dangerous the problem to be faced, the more rewarding (generally speaking) it is when we can devise a clever, workable, functional, efficient, and real solution. Truly dangerous monsters, in-game, require both DMs and players to employ their own problem solving prowess to a far greater degree than is the case with mere mediocre monsters. Just as a truly dangerous, crafty, and clever NPC is far more a problem to overcome than an impotent lackey. That is after all the very point of being dangerous. And monsters should be dangerous. If they are not then they aren't really monsters, they are more like automated and inanimate machines dressed in weird costumes.
Well, I'll take up some of the other points later. I'm trying to hit and respond to one thing at a time, as I can. Right now though I've got to get back to work. Outta time, but enjoyed the exchange.
Nice long response. Too bad that it missed the point of the complaint it was responding too entirely.
And as far as your justification goes, I'm not convinced at all that what you outline in the original post makes a monster more monsterous, and I'm beginning to get a bit of a 'badwrongfun' vibe from what you write.
But, to keep my complaint simple and to avoid getting into a shouting match, the basic problem with the whole essay you just wrote is that it contains a fundamental contridiction. You on the one hand complain that a purely mechanical description leads to purely mechanical play in which the fundamental monsterousness of the monster is removed from the game, but at the same time you are advocating as a solution to this problem more mechanics. Now, I'm as big believer in the idea that complex game mechanics help support depth of play as anyone, but I think in this case I find your prognosis flawed and your prescription ineffective.
Simply put, the monsterous quality of a monster lies almost wholly in the proper application of fluff and flavor, and if this is missing, no amount of crunch can make up for it. That 'thin disguise' you continually denigrate is precisely the answer to the problem. I think you've gotten caught up in an implicitly system specific thinking (ei, you are writing about D&D) about the problem of engaging the players in the monsterousness of their foes and of emmersing them in an environment of fear, when, if you would step back, you'd realize that good story telling and good game mastering resolves the problem whether we are using FUDGE or CoC or well D&D. You can make players afraid, panicy, uncertain, and awestruck regardless of system, it's all a matter of pacing, description, and player engagement. (Read some of the better story hours on EnWorld if you don't have personal experience with this truth).
A lack of terror and horror in your game is not a problem for mechanics. Nothing in the mechanics asserts that the characters or players necessarily know what they are facing. Nothing in the mechanics of D&D or any other system I can think of makes a monster a predictable foe, and I don't even see how you can begin to advance that argument. In 3rd edition in particular, in addition to the problem of not being able to recognize a monster from the DM's description, the player has to contend with not knowing what templates the monster might have, not knowing how advanced the monster might be, and not knowing whether and what sort of class levels the monster might have, to say nothing of not knowing whether this is a custom or customized monster that doesn't come right out of a book. If Lovecraftian 'fear of the unknown' is lacking in a D&D game, the problem isn't that the system as written can't support it, but that the DM doesn't make use of the proper narrative techniques or the tools available to him.
At best you can argue that some mechanics hinder or help the game to be emmersive (I would point to the use of minatures, for example), but I don't think you can say that monsters fail to instill fear and a sense of danger because of mechanics unless you are playing a game along the lines of Toon where the worst that can happen to a character is that they lose a scene.
And that isn't even getting into the problem of the fact that dangerous doesn't seem to mean what you think it means, since a crewed M1A2 tank is by any objective measure dangerous, threatening, and terrifying. I think you are trying to describe some other quality than 'dangerous' when you complain that a reskinned modern weapon isn't truly 'dangerous' or 'a threat'.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
Nice long response. Too bad that it missed the point of the complaint it was responding too entirely.
What you think about the points I made is of course entirely up to you. But after reading your post I realized, well I have for a long time actually, that extended arguments over the internet are not a particularly fruitful, and certainly not a profitable use of my time. I have many other things to do, and to tell the truth I only come here for entertainment purposes. To write things I enjoy, and respond to things that interest me. To discuss various ideas in a diversionary, but not necessary, fashion. Now I know that arguments on the internet generate a lot of buzz, and thread hits, and what-not. I understand they are useful in that sense, to generate interest in what people are saying or arguing about. But personally this just doesn't stimulate or concern me much now-a-days.
So with that in mind, and with the other more reproductive and profitable demands on my time, I think that this will be the last time I write anything on this site.
Had nothing to do with you in particular, of course. It doesn't bother me in the least that people disagree with me, doesn't thrill me very much when they do agree. It's something to talk about either way, but it doesn't concern me in either direction. It's not like an accomplishment or anything. Just a discussion. But you did remind me that overall, much time and effort devoted to things like internet arguments over mechanical matters involving different visions of game design parameters is just not the very best use of my time and energies. It's only a hobby, it's not curing disease, designing a building, developing a new invention, composing music, adopting a kid, writing a history book, or even just visiting the Parthenon on vacation.
So I think I'm just gonna skip the internet threads and arguments and whatnot from now on. Concentrate on other things. In the future if I wish to write something about games or game design or something of that kind then I'll just send that kinda material to my agent or one of my publishers and let them find a decent market for it.
Occasionally I think I'll still read what some of you are writing, especially in your blogs. Some of you guys come up with some really interesting ideas. But the arguments and debates over what I consider minutiae just really don't interest me much anymore. They don't much help me flesh out my own ideas, and they don't stimulate me much with any new ideas. So I'm having trouble seeing the point of the exercise. I've got cases to work and kids to educate and inventions to finish and writings to complete and SAR exercises to train for, and so forth and so on. And as far as that goes I sometimes feel kinda bad when someone responds to something I write in one of these threads and then I either don't have the time to properly respond, or the desire to argue something I just don't take to be all that important for long stretches of time. So I reckon the best way to avoid those kinds of things is just to avoid those kinds of things
Yes, arguments can also be fun and even relaxing for me but I also have to realistically weigh whether the time and energy I am devoting to them could be better utilized in some other way, especially if the argument is gonna eventually lead nowhere (nothing changes for either party). And I've concluded that internet arguments over games (or most any other subject) don't really go anywhere or lead to anything productive, profitable, or really useful. Because to be perfectly frank, the internet world is just a virtual world, it isn't the real world. It just on occasion overlaps the real world.
To be honest I don't really argue on any of the other internet sites I visit much either, I just extract information, present information, or both - but I don't generally bother to argue. Maybe, to be honest in this sense as well, in one respect I was just using this site as an outlet for argument and debate about subjects I rarely get to discuss in other venues. For "fun debates" about entertainment. But if I have to take such internet fun debates deadly seriously, or of they consume too much of my time and energy, if they even require the idea of becoming agitated, upset, or engaging in a shouting match - instead of a discussion - over different formulations of invented monster traits or the philosophy of what it means to be an imaginary monster, then to also be honest, I also have to say that I'm probably not using my time very well.
So ladies and gentlemen it was an honor and a lot of fun.
And it was enjoyable and it was interesting.
But I think it's about time for me to dig my way out of the imaginary rabbit hole. I gotta train to catch.
Well, I can't say that I also haven't also been frustrated with my inability to communicate what I'm thinking, nor am I unacquainted with the disappointment one feels when you write something you think is really cool and everyone just goes 'Meh.'
Have fun with your lurker status. Good luck getting your stuff published.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
