From Silly to Vile

[CRGreathouse]

Honestly, "silly" doesn't appeal to me in gaming products. Especially if I have to pay for it.

Ditto

 

[Latency]

Honestly, "silly" doesn't appeal to me in gaming products. Especially if I have to pay for it.

I agree, Give me monsters but keep the silly ones.

 

[the Jester]

Hm, fairly mixed responses... and all directed at the silly end.

So I guess having monsters suitable for 'vile' games wouldn't influence you too much one way or the other? Or would it? Still curious...

Sniktch, I'm well, thanks! Been busy with work, this monster project, and many other things besides.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So I guess having monsters suitable for 'vile' games wouldn't influence you too much one way or the other? Or would it? Still curious...

Fact is, there are already plenty of "vile" critters in the general books already. For many, I would assume that non-silly and vile critters are about the same until description starts to designate a more substantial difference.

As an over-all guess, however, I'd say that an entire book of silliness wouldn't sell very well, a book of vileness would sell fairly well (although dependancy on owning the BoVD would likely cut that ratio down a tad), while a book of across-the-scale critters would sell the best (as it would have a widest range of attraction to the most people possible).

 

[the Jester]

Fact is, there are already plenty of "vile" critters in the general books already. For many, I would assume that non-silly and vile critters are about the same until description starts to designate a more substantial difference.

I mean things like the 'obscene dragons' (including the filth [i.e. poop] dragon), a demon type that looks like an obviously-aroused naked man with a goat's head (woe to any they capture!), the crows of the Abyss that attack with their droppings, sentient intestinal parasites, etc.

 

[Sniktch]

Ewww, that's just wrong

However, I've been known to drop stuf flike that on my players from time to time, so no, critters like that wouldn't turn me off to the book. However, they wouldn't necessarily attract me, either, unless they were intelligently designed and presented new and interesting challenges to my players.

I think that's the main thing I look for in a monster book: Original ideas and creatures that present new and interesting obstacles, or a new angle on an old beastie. Whether silly, vile, or 'normal' (is there such a thing in D&D?), if they fulfill the above criteria, I'll pick them up...

 

[Mercule]

I mean things like the 'obscene dragons' (including the filth [i.e. poop] dragon), a demon type that looks like an obviously-aroused naked man with a goat's head (woe to any they capture!), the crows of the Abyss that attack with their droppings, sentient intestinal parasites, etc.

Were those the vile or the silly monsters?

Honestly, those sound more silly than the dire squirrel. I wouldn't use any of the above in my game.

Just seeing a poop dragon in the book would probably make me put it back on the shelf ASAP. Regardless of the quality of the rest of the material, that one entry (or any of the others listed above) would be too ridiculous for me to take any of the work seriously.

When I think about vile, I tend to think more about Hellraiser than Dogma.

 

[Harlock]

I'm more inclined to the silly monsters as you have described thusfar. That squirrel sounds great! I don't find it any more silly than certain D&D standbys. Girallon for example. Or even a gelatinous cube. I mean come on! It's a big jello that kills things! As for the vile aspect, as you have described them it certainly is not my cup of tea. I am thankful to you for calling them vile rather than mature. I do think the distinction is made clear with your examples. If I wanted that, I could pick up the Fiend Folio... have you seen that Century Worm? Yes, I know what Freud would say for me seeing "that" from the illustration, but come on, I can even guess what religion that "worm" is! So, a vote for silly and a vote against vile, and for the record, yes, the vile would keep me from actually buying said book. You just lost one sale. Hypothetically of course.

 

[Arnwyn]

Were those the vile or the silly monsters?

Honestly, those sound more silly than the dire squirrel. I wouldn't use any of the above in my game.

That is *exactly* what I thought. It sounds all silly to me.

Less inclined to buy. I don't pay for "silly".

 

[Utrecht]

So I guess having monsters suitable for 'vile' games wouldn't influence you too much one way or the other? Or would it? Still curious...

In my mind, "Vile" has less to do with actual monsters and more to do with actions of individuals (or monsters). So creating monsters based off of some sort of obscene of vile characteristic appears to be a crutch.