Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 4565418" data-attributes="member: 813">I've never read a rulebook that said "You must use these monsters exactly as presented, no exceptions." All RPG rulebooks are merely suggestions and most good RPGs tell the GM up front, "Hey, these are suggestions for you to mold into your own game". What you are saying here is not new.And I reiterate: this has nothing to do with game design. This is DM advice for "how to create memorable foes". It is excellent advice. But still it is not game design.Some DMs can take stat block with 2 lines of text "describing" the monster and turn it into the central focus of a 3 year campaign his players talk about for decades afterward. Other DMs can take a book like the Dragonomicon, read it faithfully for months and still present his players with flat cookie-cutter "dragons" no more interesting than a handful of orcs, encountered and killed with no lingering memory. The decision to create a 2 line monster or 200 page book was game design. The aspect whereby the monster was a memorable foe was good DMing. You are trying to improve DMing, not game design.Actually, most human criminals are predictable. If they weren't, law enforcement would be even more dangerous than it already is. Criminals tend to have modus operandi that do not vary from crime to crime. Once you know what kind of criminal you are dealing with, you know how to catch him. I find it hard to believe that if Monsters were real they wouldn't behave similarly.In fact, Myth tends to provide "Rules of Engagement" for Monsters. The Troll under the Bridge does not attack people in the countryside. He just wants payment for crossing the bridge else there are monstrous consequences. The Vampire will not enter an abode without proper invitation. The Sphinx does not attack you unless you get the riddle wrong. Heck, Death will set you free if you win a game against him. Unpredictable is not a trait found in all traditional Monsters.So, every monster being full of hot blood and acidic ichor is somehow not predictable? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> And again, I'm all for memorable and even recurring threats. But attaining this has nothing to do with game design and everything to do with DM advice for creating memorable foes.Let me turn this around. Suppose you could go back in time and whisper your cunning and dangerous thoughts into Gary's ear as he was typing the 1e Monster Manual. At the game design level, in order to promote this paradigm of all monsters are monstrous all the time, what would have changed? How would the Beholder's entry (or some other monster's) in your version of that book have looked? What could have been done so that ALL DMs reading that Beholder entry would be able to (without much additional work) cause all Beholders to be inescapably monstrous? Remember Game Design. Once your have Monstrously Cunning and Dangerous Beholders on page 10, page 11 must follow with the equally Monstrous and Dangerous Black Pudding. What is missing in the presentation (from a game design) point of view?</blockquote>

Verification