As a GM, which monster do you find the most difficult to role-play?

[Older Beholder]

I see. My time with them was from the Fiend Folio of AD&D 1e. I started D&D with Dragonlance adventures. These new versions are much more interesting! When you said rule 24, I thought you might have been incorporating your own take on an old monster that never got a lot of notice, utilizing the 24 dyadic emotions to give them even more complexity. I overthought the crap out of that, sorry. I've never played 5e, though I bought all three core books. I was afraid to fall in love with a new system after 3.5e came and went. My mistake. Sorry for the confusion. It does make me want to check out 5e now, though. Thanks!

Having looked it up now, I see what you mean and why you thought of it.
Not sure if the DnD version maps exactly to the dyadic emotions, but it’s definitely the same concept.
I should have said 5E24, that’s my bad.

 

[aramis erak]

Which monsters do you find the most difficult to role-play? Why? Let's discuss.

Normal folk. I'm multiply neurodivergent, normal people are outside my wheelhouse. Aliens are easier — outside star wars, star trek, and Traveller, "getting it wrong" is usually unnoticeable.
But normal people? They're hard.

 

[Imagine That TTRPG]

Having looked it up now, I see what you mean and why you thought of it.
Not sure if the DnD version maps exactly to the dyadic emotions, but it’s definitely the same concept.
I should have said 5E24, that’s my bad.

No worries, friend. I tend to overthink everything. It's natural to assume familiarity with 5e. My daughter runs 5e campaigns with her friends, though she grew up playing 3.5e. Anyway, I'm glad they gave flavor to the Flumph. Some monsters have built-in adventure hooks, like the Julajimus (MMII 3e). Others are left for us to optimize, like the Spellweaver (also MMII3e, I think). The old Flumph of AD&D 1e was nearly loreless outside of maybe a Dungeon entry many years later.

 

[Imagine That TTRPG]

Normal folk. I'm multiply neurodivergent, normal people are outside my wheelhouse. Aliens are easier — outside star wars, star trek, and Traveller, "getting it wrong" is usually unnoticeable.
But normal people? They're hard.

That really resonates with me personally. It takes honesty to say that in a public space, and I appreciate you putting it into the thread. My family’s neurodivergent too. My younger brother has Asperger’s, and both of my 14yo twins are autistic, one largely non-verbal, so your take hits close to home in the best way. “Normal” can be one of the trickiest masks to wear, let alone role-play. I love that you’ve found more freedom and comfort in playing the alien, the outsider. Sometimes it’s in those unfamiliar (to others) characters where we’re most seen. Like tears in the rain...

 

[Tonguez]

I don't tend to have difficulty with any of them. But I think that's because I cheat. I give everyone and everything a goal. I don't need to understand it, just RP them trying to achieve their goal.

Animals and beasts want animal things, food or safety or shelter. Intelligent creatures want more complicated things, gold or resources or power. Super intellects want random things for reasons we can't possibly comprehend, that guy's leg.

Everyone uses whatever resources they have available to achieve their goal. Simple. It's not deep or insightful, but it works.

Yeah I would love if every monster in the MM was given a motivation line as an indicator of what it wants and thus what its likely behaviour will be. Even something as simple as Illithid: Predatory Intelligence seeking Domination.
Still broad enough to generalise but giving some guidance

Of course, there are also some creatures that should be Unique and have their own story as motivation rather than being generalised part of a species. Medusa is one such creature that works best if its a Unique Story and not just random monster #42. I dont want to run a gorgon, I want to run Ixionne the Last Seer of Valthros who sold her soul for vengeance.

Thats also why I love Lair Actions and Regional Effects - and now tend to design Lair encounters rather than creature encounters. A Illithid lair that exposes the PCs to psychic backlash, tadpool spawning vats and transforming ceremorphs before they reach the Elder Brain lets me explore the horror and 'genius' of the Mindflayer without having to think like an Elder Brain, unless I really want to recast it as the Mind of Morbius.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Illithids are tough for me, because they're ostensibly genius level intellect villains and I do not possess a genius level intellect.

Personally I've long taken the "genius-level intellect doesn't mean you're 'smart' (in the colloquial sense), sensible, or particularly good at anticipating the behaviour of others in real terms" approach, because, frankly, I've known enough people with that level of intellect, and accompanying qualifications that it's pretty obvious the being incredibly intelligent never makes you generally brilliant, it makes you very good at a fairly narrow range of things that you're focused on (and there are some things it benefits more than others). This was interestingly notable in videogames and wargames too - the sort of person who literally sees a dozen moves (or more!) ahead in chess might deal with a basic feint well in say, Starfleet Battles, immediately recognising it and not taking the bait, but equally might get completely wrecked by a slightly more unorthodox or risky strategy, and whilst they might be better than most at assessing the likely the result of an attack, or anticipating how much energy they'd have left after a manuever, the sheer complexity of the situation destroys the ability to "go chess mode" on it. And let's not even start on videogames, even ones they purported to be good at!

Genius-level monsters should be well-prepared and shouldn't fall for bog-standard tricks, but they will never have anticipated everything, and they probably won't understand their opponents anywhere near as they think they do. They should be pretty good at things they care about, but I doubt most Illithids are very interested in "tactical combat against humanoids", because that's trivial for them most of the time and likely don't really have to make much an effort with most of their victims. Likewise most dragons seem like they'd have an astonishing knowledge of history, geography (local or otherwise), the provenance of artifacts/coins/etc. but because fighting is not particularly difficult or interesting for them, probably they're not actually particularly smart tactically (and overconfidence/arrogance are very real issues, especially for the kind of being that defines the notion of the kind of pride that comes before a fall!). Fear the very rare dragon who has actually obsessed about war and conquest for centuries - that's the guy who is the big bad of a campaign!

 

[TiQuinn]

For me, it’s orcs and goblins and hobgoblins and bugbears and kobolds. Because they’re pretty much the same archetype all around for me. Most of the time it’s not really a problem because they’re minions. But occasionally I’m portraying some sort of orc or hobgoblin warlord and they’re all just one note to me.

 

[AnotherGuy]

For me, it’s orcs and goblins and hobgoblins and bugbears and kobolds. Because they’re pretty much the same archetype all around for me. Most of the time it’s not really a problem because they’re minions. But occasionally I’m portraying some sort of orc or hobgoblin warlord and they’re all just one note to me.

Well, the way I see those leaders is that they rule by

• brute strength;
• wisdom in that they may sense the decline of their species or the need to adapt for them to survive but it is not an easy task to change them culturally, they make small increments of change within the tribe which reflects their foresight;
• charisma and guile, either showboating and boastful ladened with deception and insecurities;
• intelligence and cunning, untrustworthy and backstabbing, setting opponents of against each other;
• bribery;
• nepotism, inserting family and friends in places to ward off challengers;
• mouthpiece of an ideology, creating fanatics and ensuring loyalty;
• supernatural claim, blood-line claim; or
• combination of the above

 

[TiQuinn]

Well, the way I see those leaders is that they rule by

• brute strength;
• wisdom in that they may sense the decline of their species or the need to adapt for them to survive but it is not an easy task to change them culturally, they make small increments of change within the tribe which reflects their foresight;
• charisma and guile, either showboating and boastful ladened with deception and insecurities;
• intelligence and cunning, untrustworthy and backstabbing, setting opponents of against each other;
• bribery;
• nepotism, inserting family and friends in places to ward off challengers;
• mouthpiece of an ideology, creating fanatics and ensuring loyalty;
• supernatural claim, blood-line claim; or
• combination of the above

But my point is that they are also no different across all these different types of monster for me. My hobgoblin warlord is my orc warlord is my bugbear warlord, etc, etc. I like Gnolls better because at least I get to do a hyena laugh.

 

[Aldarc]

Gelantinous Cubes.