Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sir Whiskers" data-source="post: 1363931" data-attributes="member: 6941">As a player, I only get irritated if the GM doesn't give the characters the opportunity to learn about monsters. He can change them to his heart's content, so long as the adventurers can make reasonable efforts to learn and be prepared. Changing things just to mess with players is bad form.In one campaign, I tried changing the names of most of the monsters the group encountered, but soon stopped - there were too many times I actually wanted the characters to have a pre-set idea of what they were facing (everyone knows what an orc is). In any campaign, there's a certain amount of common knowledge that the characters would have access to, e.g., all trolls regenerate if not burned. Keeping the same name is one way of emphasizing this element. At the same time, I still changed the names of certain creatures, to add an element of uncertainty. In one adventure, I changed the name of gnolls (and made a few minor modifications to their appearance and weapons mix) and watched the characters treat them as something completely new. Instead of immediately attacking, they decided to parley, reached an agreement that allowed each side to go its own way, and generally had to use their brains, not just their weapons. They had no idea what they were facing.IMO, it really comes down to how much you want the characters to know about the world around them, and how different your creatures are from the standard archetype. If you want the party to treat orcs as orcs, leave the name alone. If you want them to treat them very differently, change the name.</blockquote>

Verification