Why we need new monsters

[Mark CMG]

It just occurred to me that the most familiar monsters aren't scary anymore. Take zombies for example. How can any player who has been alive for the last 30 years since Night Of The Living Dead came out be truly shocked at the sight of a walking dead person who wants to eat him?

Get a look at his face when a hand emerges from the quicksand into which he is sinking . . .

 

[Argyle King]

IMO, its always quality over quantity.

Give a good DM a zombie and a skeleton and he can make miracles with just those two.

Vampires?

There were hundreds of vampire movies before Coppola's masterpiece came out, still everybody bowed before the 1992 Dracula.

I think that being scared has less to do with the monster itself and much more with how it is presented... timing... a good plot... creative details.

I also believe, that the scariest monster/being/entity of them all is the one you know nothing about. It has always been, and will always the spookiest of them all.

A short, yet very good post. I agree. In the vast majority of the old Alfred Hitchcock movies, you never actually see anyone get killed or mangled, yet many of them are terrifying - I'd say more scary than some of today's gorefest movies which toss blood and guts everywhere. Tone and feel are things which are often overlooked; anxiety is a powerful tool.

In all seriousness, even if you don't play the system at all; I highly recommend GURPS Horror. The book was just released in a revamped 4th Edition copy. It does have some mechanics, but a lot of the book is advice on how to create a horror atmosphere, and discussion on how to apply that atmosphere to a game. GURPS Horror

I also agree with what wingsandsword said. I think there are a lot of great monsters among the collective mythologies of our own world which are forgotten. I was speaking with a friend of mine yesterday about how I thought it would be cool to create a setting around classic fairy tales. (He then pointed me toward a system called Grimm which I was not aware existed.) If presented in the right way, I believe that being mauled by The Big Bad Wolf or the witch from Hansel and Gretal trying to eat the PCs would be just as terrifying (if not more so) than owlbears and kobolds.

 

[Stormonu]

Scary is what YOU make of it, not what kind of monster it is. I can make a rat scary, can you?

Heck, I could make an encounter with a flumph scary.


And, looking at my six 2" thick binder full of Monster Compedium photocopies (how else do ya think you'd get them properly alphabetized?), I don't think the game needs new monsters.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't know that we need new monsters, but there's always room for more. I homebrew a lot of monsters for my campaigns. One thing I tried a while ago was stealing the Weeping Angels from Doctor Who. It didn't translate as well as I'd hoped, mostly because I made the mistake of treating them as something to be fought rather than something to be evaded. Were I doing it over again, I'd re-imagine them as a hazard rather than a monster.

Which I think is a good approach generally. Part of the scare factor of many fictional monsters comes from the fact that you can't take them in a head-on fight. Especially in the last couple of editions, D&D has tended down the road of "everything must be killable," which IMO takes a lot of the excitement and uncertainty out of encounters. If you run into a wraith and all you have are nonmagical weapons, that should be a challenge--how do we deal with this thing when our attacks go right through it? The system says "You're dead. You cannot win." Better think outside the system, then, or you're hosed.

 

[amerigoV]

Well maybe to you it's about killing things and taking their stuff, but to others it's about the story that they create together and the getting from point A to point B.

Oh, its not just that to me, but mechanically it is for D&D. There is very little in the way of fear (to attach it to the OP's thoughts) in D&D. You have monster after monster precisely because you are a hero that is supposed to kill them all. In 3e and 4e, everything is balanced to your level as to how good the PCs are at the time you encounter them (EL, CR, XP budget). Then there are the treasure tables / treasure parcels so you know what stuff you are taking of the dead body.

You can use the system anyway you want (horror, stories, political intrigue) and it will work with a good DM. Go at it and enjoy. But the core precept of the game is kill and loot, and the "story" that gives you the excuse to do so.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Oh, its not just that to me, but mechanically it is for D&D. There is very little in the way of fear (to attach it to the OP's thoughts) in D&D. You have monster after monster precisely because you are a hero that is supposed to kill them all. In 3e and 4e, everything is balanced to your level as to how good the PCs are at the time you encounter them (EL, CR, XP budget). Then there are the treasure tables / treasure parcels so you know what stuff you are taking of the dead body.

You can use the system anyway you want (horror, stories, political intrigue) and it will work with a good DM. Go at it and enjoy. But the core precept of the game is kill and loot, and the "story" that gives you the excuse to do so.

I think you missed my point on the matter. No matter the mechanics of the game with regards to being a bunch of kleptomaniac psychopathic killers who only adventure to "gain epic loot" there remains a lot of people who have low to no magic or magical items in their games, they play not to loot the next monster but to actually be part of a great story that they make up together. I don't deny that a lot of the fun involved in playing for me is to get that holy avenger when I'm a paladin, but we all have to agree there are different motivations for different players and many different types of playing styles where the core precept is not actually to always kill and loot, but rather to have fun together playing a game they love and loot is just the sprinkles on top.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

What are you looking for in new monsters? Is it new, terrifying abilities or new descriptions so that the players won't recognize their adversaries?

Your problem seems to be more the players' knowledge of the existing monsters and them falling into a routine modus operandi. You could either describe the monsters differently - zombies could look like animated statues moving slowly but unerringly while a vampire may be described as a pair of needles darting through the air, accompanied by terrible strong bursts of wind. Even if you don't change the combat stats your players will see a new monster with unknown abilities.

And this is much scarier than the next unbelievable monstrosity with unbelievable physique and erratic abilities.

 

[Jimlock]

[MENTION=36150]Herobizkit[/MENTION]:
In my case, yes, most in 2ed., and at least one under Waterdeep...

Waterdeep without beholders is like France without the french.

 

[was]

be creative...dust off yer cauldron and homebrew up some new ones

 

[Smoss]

For my gaming system and the world it describes, I went with the "Less is More" approach. I consolidated monsters (myths and legends of various creatures actually all being ONE type of critter). Some of it was cultural naming as well. I discussed some of this in my world design blogs.

Some examples include...

My lizardfolk live in a hot swamp near the tundra line - heated by volcanic activity, including sulfur fumeroles. So they tend to smell of rotten eggs. They are called "Troglodytes" by the culture nearest them. Hmm...

Rock Giants (Weakest of the four giant types in my world) are called Ogres by one culture and Trolls by another...

Feel free to check out the design blogs for other inspiration.
EN World: Your Daily RPG Magazine - Smoss

Smoss

Edit: Should also mention I had fun with one of the cultures being a bit necromantic. Zombies and skeletons galore - as mundane minions. Already mundane in OUR lives? Same in the game world. Undead like that aren't scary, they are just creepy and disgusting to others now...