Why A GM Can Never Have Too Many Bestiaries

My two favorite types of supplements for fantasy games are books of magic and bestiaries. Settings and adventures don’t really get me going, but I will get books of spells and monster manuals until the cows come home. Now that I am preparing for to start a new fantasy campaign (at least it will be a campaign by my standards, probably 2-3 months of play time) I am going through some of my newer bestiaries, looking for things to hit the players characters with during the game.

My two favorite types of supplements for fantasy games are books of magic and bestiaries. Settings and adventures don’t really get me going, but I will get books of spells and monster manuals until the cows come home. Now that I am preparing for to start a new fantasy campaign (at least it will be a campaign by my standards, probably 2-3 months of play time) I am going through some of my newer bestiaries, looking for things to hit the players characters with during the game.

The group is still on the fence as to whether we’re going to play Swords and Wizardry (which is our group’s standard for fantasy games) or Lamentations of the Flame Princess as our ruleset, but the two are close enough that prep can begin and we fill in the game later.


One of my favorite bestiaries right now if Rafael Chandler’s Lusus Naturae. Created for Lamentations of the Flame Princess, and funded through Kickstarter. What makes this bestiary so good is that it is the product of the singular vision of a writer, interpreted by one artist. This is one of the things that sets Lusus Naturae apart from the other books I’m going to talk about. Fitting in with the Lamentations of the Flame Princess aesthetic, this bestiary opens up a gateway into a heavy metal inspired world that is brutal and surreal, and not for the weak of heart. It is also very much not safe for work.

If you aren’t interested in games written for adults, by adults, then Lusus Naturae probably isn’t going to be for you.

One of the benefits for me, as a GM, with this book is the fact that I know that the players in our group haven’t read it. Never discount the power of “clean” monsters in a fantasy game. Between Chandler’s crisp writing and Gennifer Bone’s evocative art, they have created a unique book that brings across both creator’s aesthetics in a manner that is reminiscent of Clive Barker or William S. Burroughs. “Unique” is something that gets bandied about, but in the “design by committee” approach of most game design studios it isn’t something that gets seen as often as it used to in tabletop role-playing games. The days of the vision of creators like Dave Hargrave’s Arduin and Greg Stafford’s Glorantha in Runequest seem to be in the past, except for a few bright lights that pop up here and there.

An interesting mechanical bit that I plan on stealing from Lusus Naturae and using myself is the idea of the “killing blow.” This is a neat idea that transcends XP awards for killing monsters. The idea is that whoever deals the killing blow (whether through magic or a physical attack) receives a special boon. This might be an ongoing character ability, or it might be a onetime bonus to one of the next rolls made. Not every creature in the book has this, but the idea is a great one.

Also, because of the OSR approach of an implied setting rather than an overt one, it makes it easy to fit the creatures from Lusus Naturae into any ongoing campaign.


Wizard-Spawned Insanities by Johnstone Metzger and Nathan Jones is another unique monster manual, this one for the Dungeon World role-playing game. Like with Lusus Naturae, it has the benefit of unfamiliarity with the players in our group. For my purposes, it has the disadvantage of conversion from a system that isn’t similar to the rules that we will be using. It does create a couple of other steps for me as a GM, but so will the Pathfinder bestiary below.

One thing that I like about Wizard-Spawned Insanities is that each monster comes with a mini-adventure or two. These are like more fleshed out versions of the lair encounters from the Swords & Wizardry books, not enough for a campaign but enough to fill in a night or two in an ongoing story. This book also uses the idea of an implied setting, which makes it easy to slot these into the world that your group is creating, and a barebones conversion of a creature shouldn’t be too hard: just use the hit points and damage of attacks as is, and go on with your game. A detailed conversion will take a little longer, but if a creature is something that you just want to drop into a game the quick and easy will do the job.

Just like it says on the package, the creatures in the book are all the byproduct of wizardry in some way or another, either created directly by magic-users or they came about because they got in the way of magical effects. I like high magical worlds, which means that the idea behind Wizard-Spawned Insanities is something that will fit into the kinds of games that I am interested in running. There is a lot of weirdness to be found in the book, as well, which is another plus for me.

A lot of gamers look only at their system of choice, but there are a lot of interesting things that can be found when you widen your field of vision a bit. You might even find your next favorite game. For me, the utility of a game book isn’t dependent upon the system that it uses. After more than 30 years of playing and running RPGs, if I can’t convert from one game to another I need to give it up.


Since I don’t play Pathfinder, the Pathfinder Bestiary 5 wouldn’t have normally been on my radar, but flipping through the pages I found the weird fantasy elements that I like. While not as original as Lusus Naturae or Wizard-Spawned Insanities, there’s still some juice between these covers. The benefit to a “new school” book being used in an old school game is that the ideas, the frame of reference are different enough that the players won’t expect it, and the creatures aren’t as likely to be a reskin of monsters that the players have already encountered.

The Manasaputras in particular caught my eye. I’ve had an interest in Indian (Asian Indian) philosophy and religion for a long time. The ideas inherent in the religion and myth cycles, much like with the Norse or Greek mythologies, are gameable. The idea of gods and heroes who possess great power, but are still mortal in many ways maps across to gaming really well. These concepts also play well against what players look for their characters to do during a campaign. Also, Taxidermic Creatures? If that isn’t weird fantasy, then I don’t know what is.

You also find a lot of non-traditionally fantasy creatures, like grey aliens, that you may not have thought of previously, but now a fantasy game inspired by The Mothman Prophecies is trying to escape from my head. Sometimes, I feel sorry for the strange ideas that I inflict upon the players in our group. I know that I am preaching to the choir on getting Pathfinder books to a Pathfinder audience, but there is more resistance to the usability of “modern” games in old school communities. There might be almost as much resistance to Pathfinder as there would be to Dungeon World material.

Yes, jettisoning much of the mechanics from Pathfinder, in order to use these creatures in an old school campaign does take a lot more work. My approach is to take the concepts that you like about creatures, and then reconceptualize them in the new rules (and this works whether you are trying to convert to an earlier edition, or an unrelated system like Fate). If you try to reverse engineer the monster mechanics you will often end up with a lot more work than you need, and an overly complicated monster write-up.


Having a wide variety of tools in your toolbox as a Game Master is nothing but helpful. You can put forward richer worlds to develop with the rest of the group, and you don’t have to worry as much about running out of ideas…or more importantly, sometimes, running out of ideas that the players are not already familiar with. Even if you are only using materials from other games as a springboard for your own original creatures, everyone in the game comes out ahead.

Kobold Press has done their Midgard Bestiary for 13th Age. Midgard is a cool world. I like that it developed out of actual play, rather than out of the can world building exercises. The elements of a game world that develops out of play are typically there because they arose to answer a specific question about a setting, or to fulfill an actual in-game need during play. One of the things that I like about 13th Age is the fact that there aren’t a lot of mechanics to the creatures, and this quality makes it easy to pull things out of a 13th Age write-up and reinterpret it into a new game.

Midgard also has a number of unique creatures that, because they developed out of long term play through a number of D&Dalike systems, they are sometimes variants on creatures that fans of D&D will have a basic familiarity with. However, they are also enough differences, and enough new creatures as well, to make for a lot of new and interesting material for a GM.

Basically, the tl;dr of this piece is that you can’t have too many bestiaries on hand as a fantasy GM, even if your group doesn’t play all of the games involved. Having more colors in your palette means that you can pain a wider variety of happy little trees.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Science Fiction is one of those things that people either love or they hate in their fantasy. I'm ok with Cthullu's of various sorts, but not for example with the little gray guys so obviously inspired by 50's UFO craze on the Pathfinder cover. To me, that's the sort of thing likely to just bounce the players right out of emersion unless it's already understood that you play in a setting where Earth (and particularly this Earth) exists, and that in itself constrains things somewhat.

If you have a fantasy world in which alien visitation/colonization over 20 million years is the core conceit, such that it's the secret explanation for the proliferation of so many sentient races and weird monsters, then grays start to seem a little more appropriate.

I completely get where you are coming from, because I actually really dislike Cthulhuish mythos in my fantasy settings unless they are closely tied to some lost epoch of the world; Cthulhu in Golarian is just dumb (IMHO; YMMV). But grays are something that actually make a lot of sense as a mythical beast, when you consider that plenty of modern ufologists like to write about the concept of ancient astronauts, suggest they elevated early man, and inspired great works of history. The actual mythology of ufology is nonsense when analyzed in the real world but it makes a fantastic framework for modeling a fantasy realm on the idea that alien visitation isn't just happening, but it's a major hidden force behind ancient fantasy civilizations.

For a great example of how this can be consistent and even the norm look at much of what the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG is doing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Celebrim

Legend
A friend and I sat down with a stack of monster books, and we came up with a few categories that nearly every monster falls into. Basically, it's the "there are only 7 types of story" concept, applied to monsters:

  • Dragons - big things that only big heroes slay (with the subset of Sphinxes - dragons that you can beat by talking)
  • Ghosts - supernatural things that you need special items or magic to hurt
  • Cthulhus - weird things whose presence alters reality, controls your mind, and drives you insane
  • Werewolves - people who are cursed, so you feel guilty killing them
  • Orcs - people who look weird, so you don't feel guilty killing them
  • Dogs - realistic animals that you can scare away or befriend
  • Chupacabras - something that's basically just a normal animal but that looks crazy and attacks unrealistically, serving basically no plot purpose other than to make places dangerous

Most D&D monsters are chupacabras, and chupacabras are boring because there's no real story to them. If a dungeon has hook horrors, you could probably replace them with owlbears, or ankhegs, and the plot would basically stay the same, because those monsters only really exist to fight you.

Oooohh... now that's interesting. I'm not sure I fully agree, and I think you can argue that the best monsters fall into multiple categories, but I love the concept here.

In particular, I agree with you that most D&D monsters are simply chupacabras and thus boring. However, I would like to amend that to add that the quality of a chupacabra is determined by how interesting and novel it is tactically to engage with it, because really that's their whole point. This fits into my idea that typically in a bestiary what I'm attacted to is the presentation of creatures with novel mechanics that aren't simply substitutions for other things that are out there. If the undead is simply a reskinned Wight with some minor variations in appearance and lore, it's not worth paying for that idea. If its an undead that acts like artillery on the playing mat, then that might be something I'd be interested in and which might be something I'd feel helped me imagine something I wouldn't have imagined without the help, or ideally something I can just use as is.

What monster books need, I think, are sample encounters that ground the new critters in a world, and present a story more complex than just "you failed your Perception check, so it jumps out of the shadows and attacks."

That can of course be a great help, particularly since most of these novel Chupacabras lack any mythic resonance (and often rhyme or reason). But I've seen that well intentioned idea go disastrously wrong in Bestiaries as well. In fact, some of the least useful Bestiaries I've ever seen were Bestiaries where all the monsters were dull and predictable mechanically, but the author had lavished lots of time thinking about how the monster behaved, the role it had in the ecology, and how the DM might integrate the monster into an adventure. Unfortunately, the problem here is that the author spends so much time lavishing lore on the monster, that all the things of value about the book are intimately tied to his own homebrew setting and not necessarily portable to anything else. So now I find myself in a situation where to use the monster I'd have to adapt the lore, but I have no compelling reason to use the monster because aside from the lore, it's got nothing going for it.

The problem with being highly creative is that often as not, you end up creating something that is ONLY adjusted to your own tastes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

I think one of the things that people may be taking for granted is the Plato's Cave theory behind this (however bastardized my example may be). If I had played and read every single book for the last 30 years, I would probably be very comfortable crafting my own critters and using the unlimited power of imagination to add new effects to them. As it stands, I still consider myself somewhat of a fledgling DM and my understanding of monsters (view of reality, to continue my Cave analogy) has a very limited scope to only what has been given to me from the Monster Manual.

I spent a lot of time designing a monster for a contest recently. While it didn't win, it certainly taught me a lot about monster design that I never would have expected before. The monster didn't do physical damage, and that broke me out of my normal realm of thought. It suddenly opened a world more of possibilities to me that I had not explored before. (In writing that I sound like a 14 year old kid, when in reality I'm 32). Lack of "exposure" had doomed me to believe the shadows on the wall were reality.

So to the people disagreeing on things, I think at the very least its reasonable to say that all the stuff you have read in the past has shaped your view of monsters and channeled the expectation of what those monsters should be like. Even if at the end you want two different things, a variety of sources is certainly helpful in shaping what you want now. And very helpful for those that are "stuck" in one system or another to potentially look elsewhere to further creating inputs.

It's not just you, or a matter of experience; I've been gaming for 36 years now and while I have designed plenty of unique monsters, I get just as much enjoyment out of taking a published monster and seeing what I can do with it, how I can fit it in to the fantasy ecology and make it work. Books like Fiend Folio are especially enticing because they describe a "thing" but let you explore how that thing could exist. For some this is a no-go.....some prefer a monster entry that defines the elements of the beast so you can plug and play. For others it's more fun if you can take that thing and shape it as you see fit. For me, a book like Fiend Folio is more immersive and fun, while (to contrast) a book like Hqackmaster's 5E Hacklopedia is a very interesting read but maybe not as useful as a result because it defines its monsters so carefully that there is little or no creative room for me to work with.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Bodaks are vile, necrotic entities which exist in the abyssal realms, but can manifest wherever the living are squelched by unutterable evil. Bodaks are dangerous, but they are excellent plot devices. Imagine a powerful individual, someone with important information, who fought and lost the good fight against the Big Bad. Now they haunt a local region, unable to cope with the necrotic energy which plagues their forms and destroys those they lay eyes upon....

See, I'd just use a Ghost template with at most some slight customization. More to the point, all you've defended is the idea of a Bodak, and not the salient feature of one which is the death gaze. By the time a party can deal with the death gaze, a Bodak is uninteresting. But before the party can deal with the death gaze, the Bodak is uninteresting because of that.

In fair disclosure: I only used adherers as a gimmick monster for years until their "reimagining" in Pathfinder which is what prompted me to make them more significant foes. Pathfinder has done this for a lot of previously "uncool" monsters. Active current foes in my ongoing Pathfinder campaign.

This is interesting because unlike the Bodak, where the flavor is fine but the mechanical implementation is not, the problem with the Adherer was also the gimmick is interesting but the flavor isn't. So sure, if you give them some better flavor and better backstory, it definitely improves the monster.

Achaierai are natural to Acheron...

I've never had the opportunity to run a plane-hopping game. One world usually absorbs and exhausts more time than I ever have to use. Still in the context of plane-hopping, I'd probably use one.

Astral Searchers featured prominently in a campaign in which a dreamtime beast had escaped into the material plane and was traumatizing people in a local city; the trauma was forging astral searchers which manifested as a result of the actions of this entity. They were a major threat to the PCs as they tried to figure out the location of the villain in the astral plane. This was from a campaign in the mid-nineties, and I admit I haven't thought about using them since then, although some new ideas are now percolating now that you mentioned them.

It's a sort of ghost with only minor variations. I'm struggling to think when I'd use one in place of some sort of undead creature, and the only situations I can think of involve rewriting the creature slightly and/or plane hopping.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cool.

How do you deal with the fact that a single big flashy monster is often campaign defining, and you don't need very many of those?

Just so I make sure we are on the same page here, can you give some common examples? It is possible we have different notions of big flashy monsters. But I would say I generally see big flashy monsters, unless you are talking a Tarasque or something, as mainly reverberating locally rather than through the whole campaign. So just to use dragons since they are the most iconic big flashy creatures that leap to mind, if there is a dragon present somewhere in the setting, provided the dragon isn't oddly quiet or contained, much of the location will revolve around its presence. So something I might do is have the locals worship the dragon or regularly appease it in some way (or they may simply be at peace with its occasionally rampages depending on how it conducts itself). In those cases, I start with the dragon and its personality, think about who is in the area, then work from there.


Do you run all your games in the 'same world' or do you toss the world and run each game in a different one?
I have a bunch of go to worlds (though individual campaigns are often treated as separate realities). My most recent campaign is a wuxia setting that we've been playing consistently and regularly in for a year (before that it was a fantasy setting loosely connected to the wuxia setting). This looks like it will be the setting for the foreseeable future. Sometimes I will mix things up though with Cthulu or a historical game. Every so often I like to run Ravenloft now and again (and had several long term Ravenloft campaigns over the years).

For humorous monsters, I typically use things like fairies or talking animals or simply just people. I don't need a monster of special ridiculousness or wackiness for humor. The funny comes from the dialogue, and not necessarily the fact that its a scorpion tailed rabbit that smokes a cigar and does Groucho Marx impersonations. The thing about humor monsters, as I use them at least, is that they are decidedly not RangerWickett's Chupacabras. I'm not sure what category that they normally fall in, but I'd put them in "dogs", which shows that perhaps he's not discovered every category out there just yet.

this very much depends on the campaign for me. In straight fantasy I tend to lean more on things like brownies for humor (so probably not a lot different) but I don't mind introducing really quirky creatures here and there. In my wuxia campaign, a lot of the mythology and folklore that I draw from can get peculiar and there is a lot of room for humorous monsters. There is also just room for humorous situations as well (even if the creatures themselves are not that strange). For example one of my player characters married a snake demon because she thought he was the reincarnation of her husband. It was a bit silly but worked. What is interesting is a humorous creature can sometimes be used for serious scares. A movie like Childsplay has a humorous tone (and the concept of a doll come to life is sort of ridiculous) but it still works as horror. I did something similar with shadow puppets in my setting. But then I've also had some truly cigar smoking moments as well.

Science Fiction is one of those things that people either love or they hate in their fantasy. I'm ok with Cthullu's of various sorts, but not for example with the little gray guys so obviously inspired by 50's UFO craze on the Pathfinder cover. To me, that's the sort of thing likely to just bounce the players right out of emersion unless it's already understood that you play in a setting where Earth (and particularly this Earth) exists, and that in itself constrains things somewhat.

For me this really depends on the campaign world. In my last fantasy setting I reskinned a lot of science fiction and put it in fantasy attire. So there were a lot of adventures dealing with time travel, vivisection, and automatons. Having an actual space ship show up as a dungeon or something will depend on if it fits the world (in a typical fantasy setting I am okay with it because I don't see why there can't be advanced space roaming civilizations out there).
 

Yes, I know. But I wasn't just pointing out that some people can't take seriously that I have different taste, but that I'm legitimately curious about your tastes and inventions.

I can take plenty seriously that you have different tastes. That's not what I said. Having different tastes is fine, dismissing things that you don't know anything about because they might not jibe with your tastes? That's what I don't take seriously.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Just so I make sure we are on the same page here, can you give some common examples?

Well, there aren't any obvious common examples, as most people IME don't use monsters like that. The Tarasque would be an example of something that isn't particularly big or flashy IMO and which is supposed to be flashy but is poorly designed for the purpose, and the elder wyrm dragons are only slightly flashy and that's easily hand-waved away with something like 'torpor or hibernation'. I'm thinking more along the lines of Godzilla, or a monster that's shtick is defecating mountains (actual mountains) of rotting flesh, or is in the habit of building palaces out of the bodies of children, and things such as that. Or well, that are literally terrain (whole swamps, whole mountains), or monsters big enough other monsters can use them as habitat. That is monsters with really big presence, either because they are trans-colossal or do things that are unavoidably impacting on a world level. Monsters where, if they exist, any civilization that also exists is adapted to coexistence with them in some way. WotC mostly limited this sort of thing to the Epic handbook, but even then one obvious complaint would be how to have a world with both 1st level characters and epic monsters.

But there are less obvious but usually unacknowledged examples of things that are flashy and campaign altering, such as werewolves or vampires. Creatures that can self-replicate as fast as they kill are 'flashy', because they threaten dystopia. Most peoples campaigns can handle werewolves or vampires though for several important but related reasons. First, because they have a mythic resonance so players are likely to accept that things just are that way without having a lot of fridge logic. Second, because both monsters have well known 'folk-lore' remedies and weaknesses that presumably allow ordinary society to resist them with only the occasional help of heroes. And thirdly, because there is a huge block of accepted stories that integrate werewolves and vampires and give story reasons why they don't replicate to the point of vampire apocalypse, and players will likely accept these story reasons (ei, they don't 'want' to replicate like that).

in a typical fantasy setting I am okay with it because I don't see why there can't be advanced space roaming civilizations out there).

I would answer that by saying in a typical fantasy setting, outer space per se doesn't exist. 'Earth' or its analog is the only world and the Sun is not a Sun, and the planets are not worlds nor are the myriad stars themselves suns. There may be an aether above the atmosphere in which the heavenly bodies travel, but there aren't ecologies up there or natives except perhaps the celestials (heavenly creatures) that guard the clockwork and the spheres. As soon as you assume that the stars are all individual suns, around which planets whirl and each planet is a world, then you've already moved strongly from the world of fantasy to the world of science fiction.
 


Well, there aren't any obvious common examples, as most people IME don't use monsters like that. The Tarasque would be an example of something that isn't particularly big or flashy IMO and which is supposed to be flashy but is poorly designed for the purpose, and the elder wyrm dragons are only slightly flashy and that's easily hand-waved away with something like 'torpor or hibernation'. I'm thinking more along the lines of Godzilla, or a monster that's shtick is defecating mountains (actual mountains) of rotting flesh, or is in the habit of building palaces out of the bodies of children, and things such as that. Or well, that are literally terrain (whole swamps, whole mountains), or monsters big enough other monsters can use them as habitat. That is monsters with really big presence, either because they are trans-colossal or do things that are unavoidably impacting on a world level. Monsters where, if they exist, any civilization that also exists is adapted to coexistence with them in some way. WotC mostly limited this sort of thing to the Epic handbook, but even then one obvious complaint would be how to have a world with both 1st level characters and epic monsters.

But there are less obvious but usually unacknowledged examples of things that are flashy and campaign altering, such as werewolves or vampires. Creatures that can self-replicate as fast as they kill are 'flashy', because they threaten dystopia. Most peoples campaigns can handle werewolves or vampires though for several important but related reasons. First, because they have a mythic resonance so players are likely to accept that things just are that way without having a lot of fridge logic. Second, because both monsters have well known 'folk-lore' remedies and weaknesses that presumably allow ordinary society to resist them with only the occasional help of heroes. And thirdly, because there is a huge block of accepted stories that integrate werewolves and vampires and give story reasons why they don't replicate to the point of vampire apocalypse, and players will likely accept these story reasons (ei, they don't 'want' to replicate like that).

It may be that I am just more comfortable handwaving certain things or that I focus on different aspects of the setting when it comes to internal consistency, but here I see these as two very different classes of creatures. Large scale monsters, definitely demand more symbiosis to be believable. If you have a monster that is an actual mountain, then presumably other monsters living in the area nearby are insignificant enough to avoid attracting its attention or provide some positive benefit. Personally I tend to lean more toward having these sorts of things as slumbering. Some monsters I file unto "To be unleashed when appropriate". Still having a nice roster to select form can be helpful (and in more remote areas they can be more regular things).

For vampires and stuff, I haven't really worried too much about their ability to replicate, since that is within the control the creatures themselves (if they are actively trying to spread, that would be an issue, but I've never really had players bat an eye at monsters like hat (even ones that are not the standards) if its clear their goals are fairly limited and don't include domination of the world. Generally for Vampires and werewolves, not wanting to attract attention from hunters and religious orders (particularly in settings with divine magic) seems like enough of an explanation for most people.

Once in a while though I will use exactly this kind of threats to remind players that threats can get out of control sometimes. You don't want to drop a vampire plague every month, but once in a while that can be interesting.



I would answer that by saying in a typical fantasy setting, outer space per se doesn't exist. 'Earth' or its analog is the only world and the Sun is not a Sun, and the planets are not worlds nor are the myriad stars themselves suns. There may be an aether above the atmosphere in which the heavenly bodies travel, but there aren't ecologies up there or natives except perhaps the celestials (heavenly creatures) that guard the clockwork and the spheres. As soon as you assume that the stars are all individual suns, around which planets whirl and each planet is a world, then you've already moved strongly from the world of fantasy to the world of science fiction.

I tend to think of stuff like Conan, Lovecraft, etc where science fiction feels like it can fit in pretty easily sometimes. I also read more science fiction than fantasy so when I make a campaign setting there is usually a sense of space being a thing. But this will of course vary from person to person and group to group. I do tend to enjoy Doctor Who like occurrences.

Like I said though, a lot of times I will reskin it for fantasy. This is an example of something in one of my campaigns, where I basically took something that felt more inspired by the Sci Fi I was reading but gave it a bit of a Howard skin: http://thebedrockblog.blogspot.com/2014/12/ive-been-wanting-to-post-this-for-while.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Celebrim

Legend
...dismissing things that you don't know anything about because they might not jibe with your tastes? That's what I don't take seriously.

Ok, so I'd really appreciate it if you'd use your language less sloppily. If the title of this article was just clickbait, and you didn't really mean it and I wasn't supposed to take it seriously, please let me know and I'll file it alongside, "Why is no one writing games for the GUMSHOE system?"

But it does appear from the text that you are defending the claim that you can't have too many bestiaries seriously. So my detailed knowledge of the books you mention but did not review isn't really essential, since you don't claim merely that I need these particular bestiaries much less demonstrate why (since you mostly talk about your specific situation and not even the books except in very vague terms). Rather your claim is that I need all bestiaries, because a DM can't have too many. And since I'm quibbling with that claim, and you've decided to challenge me on it, all I need to demonstrate is broad familiarity with RPG bestiaries and their contents. So yeah, I've not purchased the recommendations you made here, and haven't even looked inside one other than Pathfinder 5, but I have looked at a lot of bestiaries.

Just for 3.X I'm familiar with the contents of:

Monster Manual 1-5
Fiend Folio
Draconomicon, Lords of Madness, Liber Mortis, and various other assorted theme books with mini-bestiaries.
Tome of Horrors 1-2
Creature Collection 1-3
Pathfinder's Beastiary 1-5
Denizens of Avendnu
Monsternomicon
Book of Templates
Advanced Bestiary
Bestiary Nefarious
At least some of the various Monster Geographica books
Minions
Mindscapes: Beasts of the Id
Book of Fiends
Book of Unremitting Horror
Bestiary: Predators
Liber Beastarius
Various Hacklopedia's

And probably a lot of other stuff that is no longer taking up any mental space in my head. And that's to overlook that I'm familiar with pretty much all the 1e and 2e material, as well as Gamma World, GURPS, and any number of other systems. How many bestiaries do you need to be familiar with before you can form the reasonable opinion that you don't need this particular one or even many of them? How many bestiaries do I need to be familiar with before I can decide that not only do I not need a lot of them, but I probably don't get good value out of buying one for a system I don't play since the only value I get out of a MM really is being able to flip it open and use it without much adjusting of stats or performing conversions or acts of creation.

I think it safe to say that I'm reasonably conversant with the last 30+ years of RPG development and publishing. I don't think I need to have read absolutely everything to form an opinion.

And if someone came to me and said, "I've got 500 dollars to spend, and I want to buy all the D&D books I'll probably ever need", I probably wouldn't be recommending mostly monster books or even many of them. And to a certain extent, that's not merely a matter of taste. It might be a matter of bias, in that I might have a bias against monster books because I find making monsters fairly trivial (and fun), and so don't need those books or recognize how much others do. But the truth is, the average quality of monsters in most monster collections strikes me as rather low, and your average DM would be better off with a brief guide on how to make monsters once he's got a collection or two on hand.

Beyond that, there is indeed the matter of taste, in that while it is reasonable to assume that for any given monster it is to someone's taste, it is not reasonable to assume that every monster will be to every taste and as such monsters that draw heavily from 'new wierd' or 'psionics' or 'science fiction' or comedy or specific alien settings or anything else or are a pastiche of a creature from a particular novel are almost by definition content that a large percentage of DMs won't use. Products that heavily feature monsters of a specific trope are almost by definition products aimed a narrow audience. Not everyone is going to be interested in getting Deadlands or Cthulhu or New Weird into their D&D. For people that do, these books are going to be key content. But and for people that aren't, particular Bestiaries along those lines are going to be useless or at the least offer low value compared to what they could spend their dollar on.

Also, again, I'm not disagreeing with you out of mere ignorance, or is the fact that I disagree with you too silly for public discourse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top