Why A GM Can Never Have Too Many Bestiaries

My two favorite types of supplements for fantasy games are books of magic and bestiaries. Settings and adventures don’t really get me going, but I will get books of spells and monster manuals until the cows come home. Now that I am preparing for to start a new fantasy campaign (at least it will be a campaign by my standards, probably 2-3 months of play time) I am going through some of my newer bestiaries, looking for things to hit the players characters with during the game.

My two favorite types of supplements for fantasy games are books of magic and bestiaries. Settings and adventures don’t really get me going, but I will get books of spells and monster manuals until the cows come home. Now that I am preparing for to start a new fantasy campaign (at least it will be a campaign by my standards, probably 2-3 months of play time) I am going through some of my newer bestiaries, looking for things to hit the players characters with during the game.

The group is still on the fence as to whether we’re going to play Swords and Wizardry (which is our group’s standard for fantasy games) or Lamentations of the Flame Princess as our ruleset, but the two are close enough that prep can begin and we fill in the game later.


One of my favorite bestiaries right now if Rafael Chandler’s Lusus Naturae. Created for Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and funded through Kickstarter. What makes this bestiary so good is that it is the product of the singular vision of a writer, interpreted by one artist. This is one of the things that sets Lusus Naturae apart from the other books I’m going to talk about. Fitting in with the Lamentations of the Flame Princess aesthetic, this bestiary opens up a gateway into a heavy metal inspired world that is brutal and surreal, and not for the weak of heart. It is also very much not safe for work.

If you aren’t interested in games written for adults, by adults, then Lusus Naturae probably isn’t going to be for you.

One of the benefits for me, as a GM, with this book is the fact that I know that the players in our group haven’t read it. Never discount the power of “clean” monsters in a fantasy game. Between Chandler’s crisp writing and Gennifer Bone’s evocative art, they have created a unique book that brings across both creator’s aesthetics in a manner that is reminiscent of Clive Barker or William S. Burroughs. “Unique” is something that gets bandied about, but in the “design by committee” approach of most game design studios it isn’t something that gets seen as often as it used to in tabletop role-playing games. The days of the vision of creators like Dave Hargrave’s Arduin and Greg Stafford’s Glorantha in Runequest seem to be in the past, except for a few bright lights that pop up here and there.

An interesting mechanical bit that I plan on stealing from Lusus Naturae and using myself is the idea of the “killing blow.” This is a neat idea that transcends XP awards for killing monsters. The idea is that whoever deals the killing blow (whether through magic or a physical attack) receives a special boon. This might be an ongoing character ability, or it might be a onetime bonus to one of the next rolls made. Not every creature in the book has this, but the idea is a great one.

Also, because of the OSR approach of an implied setting rather than an overt one, it makes it easy to fit the creatures from Lusus Naturae into any ongoing campaign.


Wizard-Spawned Insanities by Johnstone Metzger and Nathan Jones is another unique monster manual, this one for the Dungeon World role-playing game. Like with Lusus Naturae, it has the benefit of unfamiliarity with the players in our group. For my purposes, it has the disadvantage of conversion from a system that isn’t similar to the rules that we will be using. It does create a couple of other steps for me as a GM, but so will the Pathfinder bestiary below.

One thing that I like about Wizard-Spawned Insanities is that each monster comes with a mini-adventure or two. These are like more fleshed out versions of the lair encounters from the Swords & Wizardry books, not enough for a campaign but enough to fill in a night or two in an ongoing story. This book also uses the idea of an implied setting, which makes it easy to slot these into the world that your group is creating, and a barebones conversion of a creature shouldn’t be too hard: just use the hit points and damage of attacks as is, and go on with your game. A detailed conversion will take a little longer, but if a creature is something that you just want to drop into a game the quick and easy will do the job.

Just like it says on the package, the creatures in the book are all the byproduct of wizardry in some way or another, either created directly by magic-users or they came about because they got in the way of magical effects. I like high magical worlds, which means that the idea behind Wizard-Spawned Insanities is something that will fit into the kinds of games that I am interested in running. There is a lot of weirdness to be found in the book, as well, which is another plus for me.

A lot of gamers look only at their system of choice, but there are a lot of interesting things that can be found when you widen your field of vision a bit. You might even find your next favorite game. For me, the utility of a game book isn’t dependent upon the system that it uses. After more than 30 years of playing and running RPGs, if I can’t convert from one game to another I need to give it up.


Since I don’t play Pathfinder, the Pathfinder Bestiary 5 wouldn’t have normally been on my radar, but flipping through the pages I found the weird fantasy elements that I like. While not as original as Lusus Naturae or Wizard-Spawned Insanities, there’s still some juice between these covers. The benefit to a “new school” book being used in an old school game is that the ideas, the frame of reference are different enough that the players won’t expect it, and the creatures aren’t as likely to be a reskin of monsters that the players have already encountered.

The Manasaputras in particular caught my eye. I’ve had an interest in Indian (Asian Indian) philosophy and religion for a long time. The ideas inherent in the religion and myth cycles, much like with the Norse or Greek mythologies, are gameable. The idea of gods and heroes who possess great power, but are still mortal in many ways maps across to gaming really well. These concepts also play well against what players look for their characters to do during a campaign. Also, Taxidermic Creatures? If that isn’t weird fantasy, then I don’t know what is.

You also find a lot of non-traditionally fantasy creatures, like grey aliens, that you may not have thought of previously, but now a fantasy game inspired by The Mothman Prophecies is trying to escape from my head. Sometimes, I feel sorry for the strange ideas that I inflict upon the players in our group. I know that I am preaching to the choir on getting Pathfinder books to a Pathfinder audience, but there is more resistance to the usability of “modern” games in old school communities. There might be almost as much resistance to Pathfinder as there would be to Dungeon World material.

Yes, jettisoning much of the mechanics from Pathfinder, in order to use these creatures in an old school campaign does take a lot more work. My approach is to take the concepts that you like about creatures, and then reconceptualize them in the new rules (and this works whether you are trying to convert to an earlier edition, or an unrelated system like Fate). If you try to reverse engineer the monster mechanics you will often end up with a lot more work than you need, and an overly complicated monster write-up.


Having a wide variety of tools in your toolbox as a Game Master is nothing but helpful. You can put forward richer worlds to develop with the rest of the group, and you don’t have to worry as much about running out of ideas…or more importantly, sometimes, running out of ideas that the players are not already familiar with. Even if you are only using materials from other games as a springboard for your own original creatures, everyone in the game comes out ahead.

Kobold Press has done their Midgard Bestiary for 13th Age. Midgard is a cool world. I like that it developed out of actual play, rather than out of the can world building exercises. The elements of a game world that develops out of play are typically there because they arose to answer a specific question about a setting, or to fulfill an actual in-game need during play. One of the things that I like about 13th Age is the fact that there aren’t a lot of mechanics to the creatures, and this quality makes it easy to pull things out of a 13th Age write-up and reinterpret it into a new game.

Midgard also has a number of unique creatures that, because they developed out of long term play through a number of D&Dalike systems, they are sometimes variants on creatures that fans of D&D will have a basic familiarity with. However, they are also enough differences, and enough new creatures as well, to make for a lot of new and interesting material for a GM.

Basically, the tl;dr of this piece is that you can’t have too many bestiaries on hand as a fantasy GM, even if your group doesn’t play all of the games involved. Having more colors in your palette means that you can pain a wider variety of happy little trees.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

delericho

Legend
Heh, I actually use my cookbooks and bestiaries quite a bit (my wife, on the hand, prefers Pinterest for cooking recipes).

A few years ago, I took a conscious decision to make considerably more use of my cookbooks. It was quickly apparent which ones were meant to be used, and which were meant to just look nice.

I should perhaps do the same with Bestiaries.

I will always want more books of monsters and books of magic items. Especially when I’ve got players that have all of the core books, I want to still be able to bring surprises to the table.

Yep, I can certainly understand that. Personally, I would certainly like a couple more (for D&D 5e), but I don't need much more than that - I generally take the view that 1,000 monsters should really be enough. But YMMV, of course. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For me, believable constructs (as in, someone would actually pay to build and own one), undead variants, novel oozes, natural spirits of various sorts, freaky plant or fungi monsters, small fey, and various oversized fauna tend to have the most immediate utility because you can put them just about anywhere without impacting the overall zeitgeist of the world, and without having to do a lot explaining regarding how they came to be or how they survive where they are. Monsters that can just be hanging around in any given dungeon room even if its been sealed for a long time are almost invaluable.

Big flashy monsters that have a huge impact on the game world around them are of very limited utility - giant predators for example not only lack utility in a low level campaign but ought to have an epic impact on the world. If there is a giant voracious predator anywhere within 50 miles, surely it ought to be legendary and attracting considerable attention already. And in terms of inspiring, nothing is worse than a new skin on a bag of hit points with a claw/claw/bite routine.

More subjective is whether or not a monster is corny or campy. Humor monsters, sci-fi monsters, and wacky monsters I find just have very little utility.

The least utility of all for me is a new sentient species. I can imagine running a game where that wasn't true, and you had 500 sentient species all coexisting happily in cosmopolitan cities and it was a common trope of an NPC that they were 'the' member of that species (that was part of the story). But not only do I not run that game, I've never been in that game (outside of say Star Wars).

I think we have very different taste. For me a lot of these things add variety and fun. Each campaign world is different so bold flavors will not always be the right fit, you don't have to use every single creature, they are all just options to use when it is suitable (if I am running a gothic horror campaign my selections from the bestiaries will be different than if I am running high fantasy). But I like having lots of different options and flavors. And reskinning doesn't bother me as long as enough thought is put into the non mechanical aspects.
 

Celebrim

Legend
There's a couple of reasons why I can't take your post seriously.

All of them seem to boil down to the fact that I don't agree with you.

First off, it is purposefully, and willfully, ignorant of anything that has happened in the last 30 years, also it pretty much ignores the creative output of all of the people that I wrote about.

First of all, your assumptions regarding the state of my knowledge are ridiculous. Secondly, I'm not ignoring the creative output of people you write about, just learning my lesson that actually being critical of peoples creative output tends to be rather unwelcome.

As a critic, if I said something like that, you shouldn't have taken it seriously either, because it isn't actually contributing anything.

I'm not sure you know what the word 'critic' means. As a critic, if I actually recommended everything I read, I wouldn't be worth much as a critic would I? The whole point of a critic is that they are critical, so that when the give an endorsement to something you can have a reasonable expectation that it indeed is of very high quality. I have a very close friend who is a great guy, but as a critic he's worthless because he likes absolutely everything, so that if he recommends a restaurant you know that often as not you should save your money and stay well away. So when you give the recommendation, "You can never have enough Bestiaries", as a critic it's really hard to take that recommendation seriously or that it actually says anything positive regarding the things you are recommending.

But saying it as part of a public discourse? That's just silly.

We appear to have a fundamental disagreement regarding what is useful about public discourse.

Also, saying there's no use in the Fiend Folio?

I didn't say that. I said that the degree of utility was low for the page count. But sure, there are certainly lots of Bestiaries that are far worse.

That's just writing off one of the most creative things that has come out of the history of gaming.

Creative yes. I can definitely agree that flail snails, carbuncles, flumphs, al-mi'rajs and the like are creative.

I used it exclusively, for at least a decade, before I ever bought a Monster Manual.

That explains a lot.

The Monster Manual has been repeated ad nauseum, and the material in it wasn't all that original to begin with. Mostly retreads of Tolkien and a number of other fictional sources.

Sure. But the thing about 'retreads' as you call them, like zombies, vampires, ogres, trolls, dragons, giants, and all the like even just poisonous snakes, is that they tend to have mythic resonance, since they feature in more than one story and are a part of the human folk lore tradition. When you pull those off your shelf, you are bringing with them all sorts of power. Even if you adapt them or alter them slightly to be unique to your setting and to give your own unique take on them, you still inherit their legacy and people's prior relationship with them. It's a whole lot less work to make that monster a being, and not merely a stat block or game obstacle.

You finish your original piece by referencing "happy little trees", and in doing so you are doing exactly the same thing I'm doing with a swarm of bats, a poisonous viper, a troll or a dragon. You are connecting the reader to their past experiences and knowledge and shared culture via reference, and you did so because it is a powerful technique. Of course, you throw that line out there without actually having thought it through very well, because one of the thing that Bob Ross was noted for was using a very limited palette of color, and encouraging his students to create their own color through variation and experimentation within that limited palette. This is actually the opposite of the technique you are espousing in your essay, where you suggest that the appropriate approach is to buy every color that comes out and use those numerous shades broadly and wildly. The Bob Ross in this discussion, who likes a limited palette of classic "Happy Little Monsters" and is encouraging people to experiment with variations within a that limited palette, is actually me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Celebrim

Legend
I think we have very different taste.

That's almost certainly true. Everyone has different taste. And most people actually have multiple tastes, in the sense that I like both ketchup and ice cream but not necessarily at the same time.

But I wish you'd explain what taste you have.

For me a lot of these things add variety and fun.

What things?

Each campaign world is different so bold flavors will not always be the right fit, you don't have to use every single creature, they are all just options to use when it is suitable (if I am running a gothic horror campaign my selections from the bestiaries will be different than if I am running high fantasy). But I like having lots of different options and flavors. And reskinning doesn't bother me as long as enough thought is put into the non mechanical aspects.

My problem with bestiaries usually comes down to how much value they offer me.

If I have to restat the monster to use it, I could homebrew a monster just as quickly, and usually do.

If the monster is basically reskinned something else or lacks any unique complexity, then something like 4e's generic monster stats are actually more useful because you can just pull them down off the shelf and use them for anything that is basically just an encounter. I expect when I buy a book to be looking at pages I couldn't have written myself.

I judge an RPG book by how much of it I actually use and how essential it was to what I imagine. So a become has to justify the investment in money buying it and time reading it. If it stays on the shelf, it's worthless to me.
 

A friend and I sat down with a stack of monster books, and we came up with a few categories that nearly every monster falls into. Basically, it's the "there are only 7 types of story" concept, applied to monsters:

  • Dragons - big things that only big heroes slay (with the subset of Sphinxes - dragons that you can beat by talking)
  • Ghosts - supernatural things that you need special items or magic to hurt
  • Cthulhus - weird things whose presence alters reality, controls your mind, and drives you insane
  • Werewolves - people who are cursed, so you feel guilty killing them
  • Orcs - people who look weird, so you don't feel guilty killing them
  • Dogs - realistic animals that you can scare away or befriend
  • Chupacabras - something that's basically just a normal animal but that looks crazy and attacks unrealistically, serving basically no plot purpose other than to make places dangerous

Most D&D monsters are chupacabras, and chupacabras are boring because there's no real story to them. If a dungeon has hook horrors, you could probably replace them with owlbears, or ankhegs, and the plot would basically stay the same, because those monsters only really exist to fight you.

What monster books need, I think, are sample encounters that ground the new critters in a world, and present a story more complex than just "you failed your Perception check, so it jumps out of the shadows and attacks."
 

That's almost certainly true. Everyone has different taste. And most people actually have multiple tastes, in the sense that I like both ketchup and ice cream but not necessarily at the same time.

But I wish you'd explain what taste you have.

I was just pointing out that it is fair for you to dislike these things, and while I disagree, it is just a matter of taste. That was my way of establishing I am not hostile to your position.

In terms of what my taste is, I am trying to do that by contrast here explaining I like the things you seem to dislike in your post. I don't know that I have the time though to to sit down and catalog my taste or condense it into a handy descriptor. I will try to answer each of your questions as thoroughly as I can though.



What things?

Pretty much everything you said you didn't like: Big flashy monsters that have a huge impact on the game world, Humor monsters, sci-fi monsters, wacky monsters, and new sentient species. I can understand how a GM might not like some of those. And there are definitely times I have little use for humor monsters. But for a lot of campaigns I can think of nothing more enjoyable than a light spirited encounter with a funny creature. Sentient species I enjoy. I won't use every single one in a bestiary but I love having them on hand and love making new ones. Big flashy monsters are something you drop in with care but can make for a really great adventure.





I judge an RPG book by how much of it I actually use and how essential it was to what I imagine. So a become has to justify the investment in money buying it and time reading it. If it stays on the shelf, it's worthless to me.

Me too. Books that collect dust are not useful to me at all. By far monster manual type books are what I get the most mileage from. I can keep going back to them and find new things years later (things I might have dismissed on first glance, down the road often become useful to me). If you don't find much value in them, that is fine.
 

If I have to restat the monster to use it, I could homebrew a monster just as quickly, and usually do.
.

This is something that doesn't bother me. I am constantly adjusting material that from official sources that I put into my campaigns. What I appreciate is the core material it gives me to work with. I don't restat everything, but I am fine with tweaking to make things fit.

Home-brew monsters are also something that I like to use. These days I mostly have been using my own bestiary for my own games (just as a matter of practicality). But when I am running D&D or other systems, I make good use of the monster books.
 

Celebrim

Legend
I was just pointing out that it is fair for you to dislike these things, and while I disagree, it is just a matter of taste.

Yes, I know. But I wasn't just pointing out that some people can't take seriously that I have different taste, but that I'm legitimately curious about your tastes and inventions.

I don't know that I have the time though to to sit down and catalog my taste or condense it into a handy descriptor.

Of course. But, still, I remain interested in hearing and learning about different approaches, perhaps for the same reason that some people like bestiaries. Of course, I'm not offering $40 for your thoughts, so I can understand if you feel no real incentive to give them.

Pretty much everything you said you didn't like:

Cool.

How do you deal with the fact that a single big flashy monster is often campaign defining, and you don't need very many of those?

Do you run all your games in the 'same world' or do you toss the world and run each game in a different one?

For humorous monsters, I typically use things like fairies or talking animals or simply just people. I don't need a monster of special ridiculousness or wackiness for humor. The funny comes from the dialogue, and not necessarily the fact that its a scorpion tailed rabbit that smokes a cigar and does Groucho Marx impersonations. The thing about humor monsters, as I use them at least, is that they are decidedly not RangerWickett's Chupacabras. I'm not sure what category that they normally fall in, but I'd put them in "dogs", which shows that perhaps he's not discovered every category out there just yet.

Science Fiction is one of those things that people either love or they hate in their fantasy. I'm ok with Cthullu's of various sorts, but not for example with the little gray guys so obviously inspired by 50's UFO craze on the Pathfinder cover. To me, that's the sort of thing likely to just bounce the players right out of emersion unless it's already understood that you play in a setting where Earth (and particularly this Earth) exists, and that in itself constrains things somewhat.
 

How do you use it?



Curious. Achaierai, Adherers, Aleax, Algoids, Al-mi'raj and Astral Searchers then? The only entry in the A's I've ever used are Apparitions. In the last 30 years, I bet I've used less than 20% of the original Fiend Folio monsters in any game, and I can't say that I've ever encountered Achaierai, Adherers, Aleax, Algoids, Al-mi'raj or Astral Searchers either.

I guess my tl;dr version is that I've always felt the more Bestiaries you own, the more returns diminish from owning more of them. Like, I can see reskinning an Algoid for some purpose or another, but the odds of using any of the rest of the 'a's are pretty darn small.

UPDATE: Full list, Fiend Folio creatures have been 'used' in the sense of planned encounter or entry in a random encounter table. Starred entries were actually encountered in the game.

Apparition*, Giant Bat*, Berbalang, Bullywug, Caryatid Column*, Coffer Corpse*, Crypt Thing*, Dark Creeper, Doombat*, Drow Elf*, Ettercap, Firedrake*, Forlarran, Gibberling, Grell, Huecuva*, Iron Cobra*, Lizard King, Mephit*, Phantasm*, Phantom Stalker, Sandman, Slaad*, Yellow Musk Creeper.

The list of things I would use but haven't had the chance is probably not longer than what I have used. So even for a book that's been around that long, depending on how you define 'use', I've only used 10-20% of the book.

Part of that is in that in a typical session, I will have as many or more homebrewed monsters than ones I took from someone else. So for example, the last session had dryads, phantasms (now treated largely as a Pathfinder haunt), juju zombies, pseudo natural templated giant piranhas, and a homebrewed undead warmachine and a homebrewed undead surgeon. Next session will probably have something along the lines of giant vampire bats, a green dragon, a quadrone, and homebrewed undead crane, plus some wandering encounters I haven't fully anticipated.

Bodaks are vile, necrotic entities which exist in the abyssal realms, but can manifest wherever the living are squelched by unutterable evil. Bodaks are dangerous, but they are excellent plot devices. Imagine a powerful individual, someone with important information, who fought and lost the good fight against the Big Bad. Now they haunt a local region, unable to cope with the necrotic energy which plagues their forms and destroys those they lay eyes upon....buried behind the madness or their undead nature is a memory of the villain's weakness. Or perhaps bodaks provide the chilling stamp of the Evil's presence, a dangerous abomination which lies in the wake of his/it's passage. The PCs have to be tough to handle bodaks.....a single one against an unprepared party could be disastrous, sure, but if you're running a smart game with smart players they will likely be more than prepared to deal with bodaks. Used in a major plot a couple years back.

Adherers are a key villain in one of my campaign worlds, utterly alien entities with sticky skin which follow in mute resolution in the path of the Star Gods, building ancient temples to the dark gods and haunting the unplumbed depths of the world. In fair disclosure: I only used adherers as a gimmick monster for years until their "reimagining" in Pathfinder which is what prompted me to make them more significant foes. Pathfinder has done this for a lot of previously "uncool" monsters. Active current foes in my ongoing Pathfinder campaign.

Achaierai are natural to Acheron and the roaming armies of that plane of existence have harnessed the madness-inducing beasts into forward chargers in their never ending wars. Achaierai are herded like dogs of war into the fore front, where they are driven into the opposing troops' ranks, inducing madness and causing mayhem. This tactic works equally well for entrepeneurial warlords who have the magical means to secure planar beasts, or to hire Acheronian mercenaries. Used as recently as a couple years ago.

I used an Aleax once, in which it fought against a paladin who had defied the will of his deity in an act of vengeance. He was defeated and brought before his deity to serve in pennance. This was back in my 2E days.

Algoids lurk in various swamps in one of my campaign worlds, where they cluster into semi-sentient colonies. They are protected by the hierophant of a druidic order as a peaceful but endangered race.

Al-Mi'raj have appeared several times in my campaigns usually as a mini encounter or monster. You might appreciate them more if you read up on the original mythical beast, which is quite interesting. Pathfinder also did a great presentation/update on them in a recent Misfit Monsters Revisited book.

Astral Searchers featured prominently in a campaign in which a dreamtime beast had escaped into the material plane and was traumatizing people in a local city; the trauma was forging astral searchers which manifested as a result of the actions of this entity. They were a major threat to the PCs as they tried to figure out the location of the villain in the astral plane. This was from a campaign in the mid-nineties, and I admit I haven't thought about using them since then, although some new ideas are now percolating now that you mentioned them.

I mean....I've even used flumphs and flail snails. I'll have to dig out my old FF and let you know what I haven't used....the list may be quite short. I seem to recall a couple that I never did use. But, I even used Lava Children once, in the mid 80's, so keep that in mind....I even used Lava Children!
 

Guyanthalas

First Post
I think one of the things that people may be taking for granted is the Plato's Cave theory behind this (however bastardized my example may be). If I had played and read every single book for the last 30 years, I would probably be very comfortable crafting my own critters and using the unlimited power of imagination to add new effects to them. As it stands, I still consider myself somewhat of a fledgling DM and my understanding of monsters (view of reality, to continue my Cave analogy) has a very limited scope to only what has been given to me from the Monster Manual.

I spent a lot of time designing a monster for a contest recently. While it didn't win, it certainly taught me a lot about monster design that I never would have expected before. The monster didn't do physical damage, and that broke me out of my normal realm of thought. It suddenly opened a world more of possibilities to me that I had not explored before. (In writing that I sound like a 14 year old kid, when in reality I'm 32). Lack of "exposure" had doomed me to believe the shadows on the wall were reality.

So to the people disagreeing on things, I think at the very least its reasonable to say that all the stuff you have read in the past has shaped your view of monsters and channeled the expectation of what those monsters should be like. Even if at the end you want two different things, a variety of sources is certainly helpful in shaping what you want now. And very helpful for those that are "stuck" in one system or another to potentially look elsewhere to further creating inputs.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top