The Monster: Mythic or Game Version?

[Jack7]

A recent thread on Monsters of Myth made me wonder about this question:

Do any of you employ actual creatures of Myth in your D&D or fantasy role play games?

I do and much prefer it to standard game monster types. I generally try and play the creature as it appears and behaves in myth, rather than as a game casting (with some modifications of course) though I think my setting easily enough allows this. Other settings might not.

I generally prefer Greek and Nordic monsters, but sometimes employ Celtic and Eastern European and even Indian, Japanese, and Mayan/Aztec monsters and creatures from myth.

Do any of you guys do this, and if so how does it work out for you and your players (my players and I like it a lot), and if you do use mythic monsters and creatures and beings do you play the Game version or the version extracted form actual Myth?

What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of both methods?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I try to give more of a folktale spin to my otherwise by the book (but sometimes reskinned) monsters. It's worked great so far. The examples off the top of my head:

1) A frog-like family of river trolls (scrags) that were ruled by a cauldron-tending troll witch (adept)
2) A family of inbred ogres ruled by their half-sister, a half-ogre daughter of a hag, who mixes weather magic with violence
3) A wise druid mentor who normally spends his time in the form of a large crow
4) A smooth-talking wolf (worg) who corrupts the daughter of the ranger who killed the rest of his pack

 

[Cor Azer]

I tend to mix both in equal amounts where possible, even if my players never fully clue in to them.

One of the main things I like mythology for is examples of the plots involving such monsters; stats can tell you what something can do, but stories tell you why.

 

[Tonguez]

I came to RPGs from a background of reading myth and I even have an Anthropology degree specialisng in Myth as such I tend to frame the whole game experience on that basis of Myth/Folklore.

It means that games might be inspired by folklore themes, NPCs by the mythic archetypes and both monsters and even PC races by their mythic forms. Its why I like gnomes as tiny fey-like rock elementals and elfs are capricious alien beings obscured in the mist. BTW I dislike the DnD treatment of Fey in general and absolutely loathe DnD colour coded-dragons!

Of course myth is only frame and inspiration and sometimes game demands need to be acknowledged. I will happily mix mythologies in developing a certain 'palette' and have used half-fiend Trolls to represent minor demons and Aquatic Ogre-Magi to represent sea gods. I will also take inspiration from elsewhere too and as such my Medusae (I do have more than one) have serpent tails as inspired by Harryhausen and my Harpies are inspired by the Akaanas of Solomon Kane.

On the other side of the coin I think one of the best things about Birthright as a setting was its use of Unique monsters (like The Gorgon) to create its own internal mythology on the basis of the game. That too is a great foundation for worldbuilding...

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Tonguez, how would you do the fey in D&D? I agree that it's been disatisfying so far, but I'm stumped at how to handle them without building the whole setting around them (which could be fun, in a Strange & Norrell flavored game).

 

[Umbran]

My current game is Deadlands, rather than D&D. And most certainly I make use of creatures from American folklore and legend. Since it is set in an alternate Old West, I'm also making use of a significant amount of Native American mythology as well, and a few choice bits from voodoo traditions as well.

I'm not using too much straight European myth, though. Any time I do that, I have to explain how the critter found its way from Transylvania or Oslo or wherever to Dodge City, Kansas. Sometimes, that's easy, often it wouldn't be, so I don't do it much.

The game has its own... metaphysics, reasons for there to be monsters. So, generally the critters are adapted to fit. Usually this is not noticeable to the players - the game allows me to have critters behave largely as you'd expect them to.

 

[Doug McCrae]

What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of both methods?

There's fewer monsters to kill. If there's just one minotaur and the PCs kill it then that's that. Traditional D&D needs vast hordes of foes, which is why it made the individual monsters of myth into species.

Generally speaking I prefer more mythic monsters, I think they're much better aesthetically, but obviously there can be problems. A lot of mythic monsters operate on a really epic or even cosmic scale, while the typical rpg character starts at level 1 or the equivalent.

 

[Jack7]

I try to give more of a folktale spin to my otherwise by the book (but sometimes reskinned) monsters. It's worked great so far. The examples off the top of my head:

I've been thinking lately of using more folk-legends and fairy tales as well in my monster use. Especially after having been reading the Last Apprentice series and how the author uses witches and Spooks in a very brilliant way I think.

One of the main things I like mythology for is examples of the plots involving such monsters; stats can tell you what something can do, but stories tell you why.

I completely concur.

and elfs are capricious alien beings obscured in the mist. BTW I dislike the DnD treatment of Fey in general and absolutely loathe DnD colour coded-dragons!

I'm with ya there. I use colored dragons (as camouflage) but color is not associated with their abilities in any way (and dragons are rare in my setting), but I also have rarely felt that Elves are rightly portrayed in most fantasy games. To me they should be very, very dangeorus and even mysterious and inhuman creatures.

There's fewer monsters to kill. If there's just one minotaur and the PCs kill it then that's that. Traditional D&D needs vast hordes of foes, which is why it made the individual monsters of myth into species.

Generally speaking I prefer more mythic monsters, I think they're much better aesthetically, but obviously there can be problems. A lot of mythic monsters operate on a really epic or even cosmic scale, while the typical rpg character starts at level 1 or the equivalent.

Yeah, that's about how it goes. The vast majority of opponents are other humans; pirates, mercenaries, other adventurers and classes, other nationalities (Goths, Persians, barbarians, etc.), and so forth.

That accounts for the "opponents in number."

The mythical monsters tend to be singular opponents of very great power. Sometimes the players (if they know anything about the myth surrounding the monster, and many times they do) know basically how the monster might behave and sometimes they have a good idea of how to kill it.

But monsters in my setting, being mythical, with long histories of survival and often with pedigrees relating them to gods or other beings or powers will rarely submit to a fight on the player's terms and often flee if really endangered, rather than fight to the death. So a fight with a single "mythical monster" is rarely a fight, so much as a series of running battles, sometimes over months or years of game time, until the players figure out how to exhaust it, discover a mortal weakness, or are themselves killed in combat by the monster. So a conflict with a monster is often a war on a small scale, rather than a single fight/encounter. And it's a good point about mythic monster-scale. My players have learned that it's not just the monster that should disengage or run or even avoid fights, it's them. Because sometimes the best thing they can possibly hope to achieve with some monsters at lower levels is to distract it or slow it down or misdirect it. They have no chance in a stand-up fight, so they've learned other methods, like sabotage and misdirection and what we call, "the long war." (Of course we didn't invent that phrase, just use it to describe an ongoing monster war.)

So the human adversaries are usually the "numbers danger" (though sometimes they are also a political, military, and ambush danger) and the monsters are usually the "long-term, not sure of how to destroy this creature before it kills us" danger.

So the human enemies are often the tactical, immediate threat (unless the party is at war with another group of people) and the monsters are the strategic, long-term threat. (To the players at least, in the wider world I think humans are a much greater long term threat as an enemy, and much more dangerous than most any monster.)

They usually know how to kill other humans, the trouble is bringing enough force to the fight and avoiding being outnumbered and out-gunned and out-maneuvered by their human opponents. The monster is usually a fundamentally different type of threat, who while being hunted by the party is also studying the party so that he may learn from every encounter how better to kill the party. Though in my setting good enemy NPCs and military and rival party leaders often do the same thing.

And returning to the monsters, the monsters will sometimes cut deals with the party rather than fight them. That can be advantageous to the monsters and sometimes monsters can become allies if they are not outright and overtly evil and destructive. In the same way a Goth military commander might cut a deal with the party so that both can fight the Huns.

But if any others use mythical monsters in this way, or in a similar or even a different fashion I'd be interested in hearing how you do it exactly.

 

[Verdande]

If there's a mythical version, it's gotta be that, all the way. At least, ideally.


I usually get lazy and put a semi-random spin on whatever I'm thinking about using (instead of mountain-y dwarves, how about desert nomad dwarves? what if orcs had four arms? what if dragons were more like sandworms?) instead of taking the time to look up actual myths, but the thing is, I read rather more about real-world myths and legends than I do traditional "fantasy" fare.

So where do I even fall, if I don't really use either?

 

[Jack7]

So where do I even fall, if I don't really use either?

I hadn't really thought of it in quite those terms, but I don't use straight myth versions of monsters either because you have to make for (at least some) variations based on the game you're playing.

But I do like your idea of hybridizing mythic monsters and game monsters.

I also keep a list of both game monster powers and special abilities and mythic monster powers and special abilities and each new important monster I create will have abilities or capabilities the players can't really guess at or know until they encounter them. And some monsters can only be truly killed (or sometimes harmed) in special ways or with special substances and since most monsters are unique that cannot be known except by trial and error or sometimes by research or discovery. That makes monsters much more dangerous and unpredictable.

I also like to use Chimeras (creating monsters out of mixed parts).