Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 5701022" data-attributes="member: 151">There are several schools of thought, here.First off, we probably don't need new monsters.  Even if you feel you need new ones, generally what you probably mean is 'these monsters no longer have the effect of being strange/scary/intimidating/unknown' to my players.  This is a wholly different issue than their being a problem with the monsters themselves.  We'll come back to that.Let's be clear, here.  Sometimes, dressing up the description of a monster, especially a common one, can be a pointless exercise.  When you've gamed for 30+ years, no amount of obfuscating language is going to make a zombie, an orc, a kuo-toa or even a beholder that impressive or intimidating in its raw form.  Even variants will still have an air of 'been there, done that'.  New monsters can, in theory, stymie that perception.  BUT, if the new monster is just a variation on a theme (how are norkers really different from orcs, really?) then that's a minor hit that fades fast.That said, the fact is this: context and presentation can be just as important as the monster's appearance or stats.  The goblins presented in the first Pathfinder module, for example, were VERY memorable.  They were the right blend of insane, comical and dangerous.   You were likely to watch them kill themselves as you were to see them murder a dog horribly while you watched.  They didn't feel like lower HD orcs or bugbears.  They feel unique and when my players encountered them, they remembered them.  4E helps this, to a degree, by removing the predictability from many creatures...that may be a goblin, sure...or it might be a Goblin Decimator, who's stats have no relation to a regular goblin.  Of course, this has good and bad points, as it can undermine the players understanding of the world.  But that's another discussion entirely, IMHO.What I can say is that Piratecat introduced a very good idea under 3E that I've used many times since he put us wise to it.  That trick is to reskin a common monster, make some minor flavor and cosmetic changes...and the players have NO IDEA what they're dealing with.  A simple encounter with what would otherwise be a normal monster ([/i]"Bullette!  Execute standard monster tactic B and take him down!"[/i]) becomes a dangerous and unpredictable encounter.  ("What is it?  It's some form of undead but I've never seen it before and arrows just bounce off of it!  Pull Back!")Consider this example (and again, apologies to Kevin for using his story hour, here):  at one point, his players were investigating a graveyard for some reason, hunting for a monster that had been kidnapping folks.  Then this happened:Okay, that's serious nightmare fuel, there.  And what is it?  It's a purple worm with a template on it and an extra grappling ability.  As Piratecat posted in his mechanics thread about the story hour:The point here is this:  if you want players to feel threatened, excited or intimidated....in other words, thrown out of their element....then you can either throw the expected at them and twist it OR throw something at them that is unexpected, even if it's something they would otherwise be familiar with.  A simple coat of paint and some minor changes can completely confound an otherwise jaded party.  Change a few keywords for a monster, for example, modify its appearance and an ice elemental becomes a wicker-man, vulnerable to fire but using vines to ensnare an enemy instead of freezing them.  The players need to stop, analyze and maybe be more cautious or even fearful than normal.Just don't OVERUSE that trick or it loses it's power.  If the players start to think that you've just re-skinned every monster, it becomes a game of 'what is it really?' and then you've lost them again.</blockquote>

Verification