What Creatures "Break" A Fantasy Game World For You?

[Greg K]

The deal breakers for me include robots, androids, space hampsters. Also, clockwork monsters, dinosaurs, tentacled creatures, and angelic beings based on choirs of angels can be deal breakers depending on the setting and how they are used, but are not necessarily.

Generally, I don't like most of the new monsters created/published by WOTC specifically for 3e. I'd say the number is 90% or more. However, most are not deal breakers. I just would never use them.

As for monsters from previous editions that have been mentioned. have no problem with beholders. I'm also ok with mind flayers if they are established as part of the setting early on.

Displacer beasts, blink dogs, mimics, piercers, rust monsters, etc.? I never use them. They are fine. However, I prefer them to not be at all common. Maybe some mad wizards experiment used once in a campaign if at all.

I guess with the exceptions of robots and androids, it really comes down to why the DM included the monster. To just include them, because " It is DND" doesn't work for me and niether does throwing something into a world if it goes against the setting the DM has established simply, because "I thought it would be a cool fight, challenge, or I thought they were the coolest thing ever".

 

[frankthedm]

Not to stray into politics or religion territory...but is it possible that the player doesn't 'believe' in dinosaurs or the use of dinosaurs somehow offended him?

Possible, but I have a hunch that those who feel dino bones are deceptions crafted by the Adversary are modestly rare at gaming tables.

 

[frankthedm]

Aberrations, particularly the alien, tentacle-covered, Lovecraftian kind. I hate Lovecraftian influences on fantasy. I don't think they work together well at all, and I would never play in a campaign inspired by that genre.

Just wondering though, how do you feel about Mind Flayers and Beholders, seeing how they are very classic D&D creatures but are aberrations?

Not a criticism, just curious.

I think his post indicated those are deal breakers to him.

Thankfully Lovecraftian influence has been in D&D since the Against the Giants modules and have only gotton stronger of recent. It was there at the founding of the Conan mythology [HPL and REH being pen pals and all.] and the Dreamlands is a fine example of a fantasy milieu.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

After my experience in the SCA some things about D&D combat breaks my fantasy for me. For example the fact that helms play no role (except for an obscure rule in the AD&D DMG) and the proliferation of chainmail bikinis.

But how do you know?

Have you empirically tested the effectivness of chainmail bikinis in SCA, with the wearers having a 16 or higher Comeliness? And found them to be ineffective? If you haven't run such tests, then you can't say they don't work. And if you have run such tests, you need a website documenting these experiments.

 

[Dragon Snack]

With pictures.

Don't forget the pictures...

 

[CruelSummerLord]

Well, if I were to game, which I don't, then I'd be more tolerant of many things, my POV being that it's the DM's game, and he has the right to tailor his setting as he sees fit. I might not be overly fond of such elements, but I'd suck it up and play along.

Now, if I were to run a game, there would be several things I would never allow under any circumstances whatsoever:

-Firearms. People are going to be using broadswords and longbows, and wearing chain mail and shields, for the rest of eternity.

-Anything too technological in general. That means no Warforged, no clockwork golems, no boilers or steam power, nothing at all like that.

As another poster said, I don't like peanut butter in my chocolate.

When it comes to monsters, I'm rather more accepting. I'll even take flumphs and related creatures. Monsters that are gamebreakers are those that have absurdly inflated hit dice for no apparent reason. Quite a few of the monsters in the 3E Monster Manual II are offenders in this example-their Hit Dice are so high they'd be obscenely powerful if they had those same hit dice in 1E or 2E.

As far as dinosaurs, I'd have in mind a special Lost World-type place at the North Pole where they, and only they, flourish.

Another gamebreaker for me is an excess of the fantastic. That is to say, excessive numbers of obviously non-human and fantastical creatures in a given setting. Too many tieflings, elemental genasi, and all other such things just clash with my own view of what a D&D setting should be.

As I've gone on about before, I also don't like seeing +1 magic swords in the hands of common assassins or bodyguards. I don't care what WotC says, in my mind you simply shouldn't be able to buy magic items to increase your power, except in rare-and expensive-circumustances. There simply aren't enough magic items to go around in my world.

As a result, in my game PCs would be required to choose one of the standard PHB races only. Humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, and maybe even half-ogres are all acceptable, but tieflings, warforged, and genasi are not.

Oh, and no magic shops. Magic items are too hard and too expensive to make to be sold on the open market, and there simply aren't enough of them to go around. You can buy potions and low-level scrolls, mabye even an odd wand here or there, but nothing greater. Wizards' guilds and other such powerful groups can accept magic items in payment, but chances are that, instead of selling them for cash, they'll keep them for their own use. A wizard can give a magic shield to his bodyguard, or perhaps use it to repay a debt to a nobleman who did him a favor, but he'll definitely use those bracers of armor for himself.

So, in short, anything that doesn't mesh with my pseudo-medieval, technologically frozen in amber, low-magic world.

YMMV, of course, and if I play in your game, you set out the rules and I follow.

 

[SoulsFury]

Well, if I were to game, which I don't, then I'd be more tolerant of many things, my POV being that it's the DM's game, and he has the right to tailor his setting as he sees fit. I might not be overly fond of such elements, but I'd suck it up and play along.

Now, if I were to run a game, there would be several things I would never allow under any circumstances whatsoever:

-Firearms. People are going to be using broadswords and longbows, and wearing chain mail and shields, for the rest of eternity.

-Anything too technological in general. That means no Warforged, no clockwork golems, no boilers or steam power, nothing at all like that.

As another poster said, I don't like peanut butter in my chocolate.

When it comes to monsters, I'm rather more accepting. I'll even take flumphs and related creatures. Monsters that are gamebreakers are those that have absurdly inflated hit dice for no apparent reason. Quite a few of the monsters in the 3E Monster Manual II are offenders in this example-their Hit Dice are so high they'd be obscenely powerful if they had those same hit dice in 1E or 2E.

As far as dinosaurs, I'd have in mind a special Lost World-type place at the North Pole where they, and only they, flourish.

Another gamebreaker for me is an excess of the fantastic. That is to say, excessive numbers of obviously non-human and fantastical creatures in a given setting. Too many tieflings, elemental genasi, and all other such things just clash with my own view of what a D&D setting should be.

As I've gone on about before, I also don't like seeing +1 magic swords in the hands of common assassins or bodyguards. I don't care what WotC says, in my mind you simply shouldn't be able to buy magic items to increase your power, except in rare-and expensive-circumustances. There simply aren't enough magic items to go around in my world.

As a result, in my game PCs would be required to choose one of the standard PHB races only. Humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, and maybe even half-ogres are all acceptable, but tieflings, warforged, and genasi are not.

Oh, and no magic shops. Magic items are too hard and too expensive to make to be sold on the open market, and there simply aren't enough of them to go around. You can buy potions and low-level scrolls, mabye even an odd wand here or there, but nothing greater. Wizards' guilds and other such powerful groups can accept magic items in payment, but chances are that, instead of selling them for cash, they'll keep them for their own use. A wizard can give a magic shield to his bodyguard, or perhaps use it to repay a debt to a nobleman who did him a favor, but he'll definitely use those bracers of armor for himself.

So, in short, anything that doesn't mesh with my pseudo-medieval, technologically frozen in amber, low-magic world.

YMMV, of course, and if I play in your game, you set out the rules and I follow.

I have never, in my 5-6 years of mostly lurking on this site ever agreed more with a post that I read. This goes with everything I believe about playing or dming dnd.

 

[DarkKestral]

http://www.pixelscapes.com/sailornothing/

Not quite Ravenloft, but the feel should work.

Careful: it's not very nice. But it is very clever, and very well written.

That's precisely what I was thinking of when I remembered that source. Given that many magical girl shows tend to include the "Negaverse" or "Shadow World" Evil Mirror archetype world as the source of the baddies, the entire idea's not TOTALLY out of genre; you go a little more in-depth as to why the baddies are actually bad than is normal. Of course, it's probably a bit more anime than many would like, and something like BESM Tri-stat or HERO would probably be more efficient, but people know D&D...

 

[cougent]

Well, if I were to game, which I don't, then I'd be more tolerant of many things, my POV being that it's the DM's game, and he has the right to tailor his setting as he sees fit. I might not be overly fond of such elements, but I'd suck it up and play along.

Now, if I were to run a game, there would be several things I would never allow under any circumstances whatsoever:

-Firearms. People are going to be using broadswords and longbows, and wearing chain mail and shields, for the rest of eternity.

-Anything too technological in general. That means no Warforged, no clockwork golems, no boilers or steam power, nothing at all like that.

As another poster said, I don't like peanut butter in my chocolate.

When it comes to monsters, I'm rather more accepting. I'll even take flumphs and related creatures. Monsters that are gamebreakers are those that have absurdly inflated hit dice for no apparent reason. Quite a few of the monsters in the 3E Monster Manual II are offenders in this example-their Hit Dice are so high they'd be obscenely powerful if they had those same hit dice in 1E or 2E.

As far as dinosaurs, I'd have in mind a special Lost World-type place at the North Pole where they, and only they, flourish.

Another gamebreaker for me is an excess of the fantastic. That is to say, excessive numbers of obviously non-human and fantastical creatures in a given setting. Too many tieflings, elemental genasi, and all other such things just clash with my own view of what a D&D setting should be.

As I've gone on about before, I also don't like seeing +1 magic swords in the hands of common assassins or bodyguards. I don't care what WotC says, in my mind you simply shouldn't be able to buy magic items to increase your power, except in rare-and expensive-circumustances. There simply aren't enough magic items to go around in my world.

As a result, in my game PCs would be required to choose one of the standard PHB races only. Humans, dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, and maybe even half-ogres are all acceptable, but tieflings, warforged, and genasi are not.

Oh, and no magic shops. Magic items are too hard and too expensive to make to be sold on the open market, and there simply aren't enough of them to go around. You can buy potions and low-level scrolls, mabye even an odd wand here or there, but nothing greater. Wizards' guilds and other such powerful groups can accept magic items in payment, but chances are that, instead of selling them for cash, they'll keep them for their own use. A wizard can give a magic shield to his bodyguard, or perhaps use it to repay a debt to a nobleman who did him a favor, but he'll definitely use those bracers of armor for himself.

So, in short, anything that doesn't mesh with my pseudo-medieval, technologically frozen in amber, low-magic world.

YMMV, of course, and if I play in your game, you set out the rules and I follow.

I have never, in my 5-6 years of mostly lurking on this site ever agreed more with a post that I read. This goes with everything I believe about playing or dming dnd.

I recently moved from DM to player after many years and this is exactly how I see it as well.

 

[howandwhy99]

I like to use the Care Bear rule. Technically, you can play any conceivable character you'd like. It may or may not work well with the world and a player should know that up front, but I'm not going to disallow it.

On the other hand, if you want to play something that your fellow players just DO NOT want in their, say, Dragonlance campaign, for instance: "Lil' Devil Bear" or "Aniken Skywalker when he was 10", then your fellow players can shoot that idea down. If you can get it past them, then I don't have a problem with it.

I'd rather people played what they were really revved up to play. It's not like they can't retire the character if they get bored with it later.

I do require that anything added to the world cannot be retconned out later, but that's more to keep things honest than to remind folks of bad character choices.