• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Why we need new monsters

Vampires and zombies can still be scary, if the execution is correct. Sure, the concept itself is old hat, and they're not going to be scary just because they pop and say, "Hey! Here we are! Dead person that wants to eat your brains! Roll for initiative!"

That said... we need new monsters? Are you somehow operating under the misinterpretation that zombies and vampires are the whole of monsters that D&D possesses?

New monsters basically give us entire books where some developer looked up every word for ghost in the thesaurus and made a separate critter out of each entry. New monsters gave us the flumpf and the flail snail.

New monsters can be fun... don't get me wrong. But we certainly don't need them. And many of the thousands that we've gotten since D&D debuted have largely been ineffective compared to tried and true classics.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I am not a huge monster book fan. I always feel like the later monster books are starting to "get out there" for their creature ideas, grabbing for straws. I do like seeing interesting templates applied to core monsters just to change things up, to see a monster you think is going to act one way have a slight variation. Something like fast zombies or something along those lines.

But for the moment I feel like I have more than enough monsters to keep my players busy.
 

Put the fear of death into the players and your monsters will remain scary!

To me this is one of the issues with the game, characters level out of the death zone, that is why you have to keep looking for more and more monsters.
 

Ok raise your hand if you ever used all the monsters in the 1e MM. Jasper quickly sits on his hands.
No we don't need new monsters. Some of best times I had was not using the names in MM, and maybe changing the color of the critter.
 

Put the fear of death into the players and your monsters will remain scary!

To me this is one of the issues with the game, characters level out of the death zone, that is why you have to keep looking for more and more monsters.
While that can be the case in some circumstances, that comes down to how the DM plays the monsters as well. You can throw in more monsters, do waves, mess with terrain, tweak the monsters to make them deal more damage, toss in traps, and any number of other things to deal with "out leveling the death zone." There are always ways to challenge and scare characters, even at very high levels of the game.

Check out this blog about epic tier using minions and terrain to challenge some very high level characters in his campaign: Home - Dave's D&D 4E game world

To me it all comes down to the DM and how well he/she manages the game and how much of a challenge the DM envisions the scenario to be. This is the DMs world, and he/she can do pretty much anything within the RAW or home-brewed rules to take the players down a peg or two, challenge them in unusual ways, or put the fear of god into them.
 

According to my players, the creepiest game I ever ran was one that I was afraid would be too hackneyed and cliched.

In a nutshell, the players took shelter with a strange family in a mansion to escape a storm. Freaky stuff happened and the family tried to kill them. After they escaped, at the next town they mentioned what had happened and after they described the house and the family, they were told that place had burned down 40 years ago.

Classic campfire horror story, I figure everyone's heard it and it would just sound cliche. It creeped the players out.

Moral of the story: it's not what you use, it's how you use it.
 

D&D is not about being scared. Its about killing things and taking their stuff. So we just need options on things to kill. On that point, I agree more is better, as better is varity. Plus, horror in fantasy is tough (not impossible, just tough). "What do you mean I should be scared of this zombie? I have one as a butler?"

As others point out, horror is all about presentation, not creatures. A serial killer, if run properly, can create "fear" far easier than a new monster. When the player can relate to it, they can imagine the outcome (bad) in more vivid terms.
 

Ok raise your hand if you ever used all the monsters in the 1e MM. Jasper quickly sits on his hands.
No we don't need new monsters. Some of best times I had was not using the names in MM, and maybe changing the color of the critter.
Good point! I don't think I've used half the dang monsters in MM1!
 

D&D is not about being scared. Its about killing things and taking their stuff. So we just need options on things to kill. On that point, I agree more is better, as better is varity. Plus, horror in fantasy is tough (not impossible, just tough). "What do you mean I should be scared of this zombie? I have one as a butler?"

As others point out, horror is all about presentation, not creatures. A serial killer, if run properly, can create "fear" far easier than a new monster. When the player can relate to it, they can imagine the outcome (bad) in more vivid terms.
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. That may entail that the adventure/campaign be horror driven, high fantasy, modern day, or steampunk. There are so many different opinions on the matter of what constitutes a good game that I won't even try to get into that, but suffice to say that is not the only thing that people like to do and that's not the only reason to have monsters/creatures/NPCs in the game(s).
 

I'm not one to pimp my blog here normally, but rather than retype my thoughts on this, here's a link.

Dark•Heritage: Making monsters scary
A problem that I often see in roleplaying games, and frankly, in D&D in particular, is that monsters completely fail to be scary. Rather, they are viewed as tactical gamepieces and challenges. Arguably, this is what Gygax and Arneson wanted all along, but it is not something that I want, and I think the idea of reducing monsters to a statline that has tactical implications is to make them not monstrous at all.

Granted, it doesn't have to be like this. I've managed to engender some of the same kind of dramatic tension in D&D games (occasionally) as you get while reading a scary book or watching a scary movie... but frankly, not very often. Part of it is the paradigm and attitude that the players bring to the table; if they're playing D&D, then there's an assumption that they'll be facing challenges that they should be able to overcome if they're smart and tactically sound. It's just the tone and nature of the game, or at least it's often expected to be so.

I like monsters to be scary. I like players to really question whether or not they want to fight these monsters. But I admit that my success, what of it there has been anyway, in accomplishing this is something that I've done more intuitively rather than rationally, and I'm not 100% certain that I fully understand how to pull this off. So for this post, I'm going to noodle around some ideas and see where they go. Artwork is by Wayne Reynolds from a Paizo adventure that does, in fact, manage to turn a "stock" monster into something that's pretty creepy.

1) Monsters should be set pieces. The idea of going through a "dungeon" and fighting monster after monster has really diluted the concept. In any good story of supernatural horror, the monsters are never routine. Be careful about showing off too many monsters. Granted, D&D has truckloads of monsters. But don't assume that all of them are hanging around waiting to be discovered. Think of how the ancient Greeks did it. There were not "medusas"; there was one Medusa. There were not hydras, there was one Lyrnean hydra, etc. While you don't need to go to this extreme, keep in mind that monsters are much more monstrous if they are extraordinary. No matter how monstrous the description or the statline makes them appear, they never will be if they're routine. If you're not fighting monsters all the time, what are you having the PCs spend their time doing otherwise? Bad guys! Thugs, cultists, criminals, spies, and the like. Don't underestimate the value of contrasting monsters to larger hordes of plain old bad guys. Besides, bad guys are fun to fight for the most part on their own too. And also don't underestimate the challenge of dangerous animals. In this era of high powered hunting rifles, enclosed off-road vehicles, and completely tamed terrain, we forget exactly how dangerous it would be to come across a herd of wild elephants who feel that their calves are threatened out in the middle of nowhere with nothing to defend yourself with except a few sharp pieces of metal that you need to hold close to yourself to use. Or how dangerous a pack of wolves could be to a lonely traveler, or a pride of hungry lions.

2) Closely related to that, monsters should be unknown. There's few things more prosaic than the GM of a game casually announcing what his monsters are, when their properties, strengths and weaknesses are well known to all the players. Does this mean that you should only use unfamiliar and unusual monsters that you make up yourself or find in obscure third party sources? Of course not, but you should take steps to, again, keep your monsters from feeling routine. Think about possibly making them difficult to identify for a time. The PCs don't actually see them well until they're well into the thick of it, but they see the effects of their attacks on NPCs or something like that. Mix up your descriptions so that the PCs can't easily match them to a monster that they know. Statistics and descriptions can be decoupled and rearranged. One of my most memorable encounters was with a handful of hellhounds that I simply described very differently--I used some artwork from Paizo of Lovecraftian hounds of Tindalos to represent them, gave them a chittering Predator-like growl, and had their fiery breath transform into a vomit of tiny, toothy little demons that crawled all over their victims. Consider giving some of your monsters surprise abilities. A zombie that has a poisonous bite, or something. It doesn't have to be a big deal, just enough to keep the PCs guessing and unsure of what exactly it is that they're up against.

3) And closely related to that, make your monsters horrific. Granted, another of my most memorable scary monster encounters was with a little blighter that due to some relatively weak stats and some extraordinary good rolls by the PCs, ended up going down like a chump in the first or second round of combat, but that was the exception not the rule. He was creepy because of all the other stuff I had him do, but by and large a monster that the PCs aren't sure they can beat is one that's more likely to scare them than one that's only going to "reduce their resources by XY%" or something inane like that. In fact, ignoring the advice of the Challenge Ratings system completely (which is a good idea for a lot of reasons, only one of which I'll get into here and now), you can pit the PCs against foes which they literally can't defeat in straight-up combat. Monsters shouldn't often be creatures that cause heroic PCs to shout, "Huzzah!" and charge at to engage in melee; they should be monstrous. There should be a lot of doubt about how to deal with them, if they're up to the challenge, and what exactly can be done to get around the many strengths that monsters might have. Rather, you can have the PCs need to research specific dirty tricks or weaknesses that allow them to have a chance against the monster; without which they'd be committing certain suicide. A demon that can be banished back to its home dimension only via a desperately hurried ritual is scarier than one that can be banished back to its home dimension after the PCs just jump in and attack it.

4) And that gets a bit into my last tip; foreshadow your monsters. There's nothing worse than having a monster just pop out of nowhere, get defeated and then promptly forgotten. The chump monster that I mentioned above? He was mostly memorable because of the excellent (and extraordinary; I haven't quite had this level of success any other time, sadly) foreshadowing. While the PCs were attempting to sleep at a crowded and sleazy dockside inn, they were woken up when a young woman in the room next to them screamed. Barging into her room, they found that her eyes had been scooped out of her head. There was no sign of any attacker, just the sobbing victim's almost nonsensical cry that the last thing she saw was a hideous face over her shoulder in the mirror. A few more clues, a bit more foreshadowing... and then a half-glimpsed movement in their own mirror, and the players were keyed up, tense, and on edge. When it turned out that their invisible assailant was actually killed rather easily, it didn't diminish the feeling of dread and creepiness that the encounter had managed to elicit. And this foreshadowing harkens back to my point #1 if monsters are set pieces, then you can craft an entire "adventure" around finding and defeating one, which means that you should have plenty of opportunities to foreshadow, to drop in unsettling or horrific clues or feelings, and generally ratchet up the tension on your way towards the final confrontation.

Anyway, like I said, much of that I do more instinctively rather than purposefully, and I have no illusions about the completeness of my methods. Any other good ideas out there to make sure that monsters in D&D remain... well, monstrous?
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top