TheRPGSite

In the long history of D&D, which monster, non-human race, etc do you consider the most idiotic?  Not in the sense of intelligence, in the sense of being lame, that is.

Nilbog

Flail Snail

Flumph.  It literally serves 0 purpose being statted out.

A modron would give the flail snail and flumph a run for their money.  I'm not sure who would win out of those three.

Early Catoblepas with their droopy necks. Looks like they've changed them recently to just be an evil hippo/warthog/water buffalo cross.

Quote from: Michael Gray;1022045Early Catoblepas with their droopy necks. Looks like they've changed them recently to just be an evil hippo/warthog/water buffalo cross.

The droopy head is part of its original description.

Quote from: Omega;1022050The droopy head is part of its original description.

Yes, I'm saying the droopy neck is dumb.

The Al-Mi'raj.

I dont think any given monster in D&D is dumb. Some are meant to be silly. Some I believe are intentionally made to look silly and then you find out how lethal they are.

Alot of the weird monsters came from the Fiend Folio and most, or all, of those were originally entries in the REALLY early editions of White Dwarf and I believe some of the UK modules.

As I've noted before. As a DM I actually scored a kill on a PC thief who messing with the other party members when innocent little flumph saw his deeds and was morally outraged, promptly dropping on him with all those spikes they originally had. Flumph hits, does 3 damage and injects acid doing 3 damage each round thereafter for 4 more rounds.

"You have been killed by an outraged flumph. Roll new character.":D

I would hope this thread is approached with a little sense of humor...

I have said it before but I think the Peryton is absurd. Maybe it was the first drawing I saw of it... maybe the idea of doing anything to make a deer (the ultimate prey animal) look bad ass.

And the last time I said it, I was lambasted by the official Peryton Fan Club that resides on this message board somewhere.

But FanBoys be damned... the Peryton is still D.U.M.B.

Quote from: Shemek hiTankolel;1022053The Al-Mi'raj.

The mythological creature I'm fine with. What made this one annoying was the moment you used it as a DM, the rest of the game was pretty much reconciled to Monty Pathon's Holy Grail territory. Fine if you want to go that route, and sometimes we did.

Quote from: Michael Gray;1022051Yes, I'm saying the droopy neck is dumb.

By "original" he means "13th century."  The creature was not invented for D&D.

The dumbest D&D creature?

Players.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022096The dumbest D&D creature?

Players.

Dumb perhaps, but you can't have dumb players without DMs who invite them to the table, over and over. :D

Half of the monsters in the Fiend Folio though if I had to only choose one it'd be the Nilbog.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1022039A modron would give the flail snail and flumph a run for their money.  I'm not sure who would win out of those three.

HEY!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022096The dumbest D&D creature?

Players.

This of course!

Never the less, the Peryton and Catoblepas are both creatures from folklore that are reasonably well represented in D&D.  I'd go with that stump with the holographic rabbit lure, tentacles and toothed vagina, from Expedition To The Barrier Peaks, whatever that sucker was called.

The bunny-stump was a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.

As much as I have to admit that modrons are pretty silly (I love the things, though), I'd have to say that all the creatures who are 100% made exclusively as a middle finger to PCs are all crowding the top level for me.   That monster that is a living floor leaps to mind.  Cloakers, I am pretty sure started out just waiting around for a PC to put it on, that sort of thing.  The aforementioned bunny-stump. Boo.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022096The dumbest D&D creature?

Players.

That was my first thought, but it was too easy.

My second thought was Gelatinous Cube just to see if I could get a rise out of you ... :)

Xvart, and every other less-than-1-HD humanoid (honestly, it's not a goblin [it's a goblin]) that followed them.

Also, Grungs. I've had it up to here with Grungs. What, Bullywugs were not silly enough?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022095By "original" he means "13th century."  The creature was not invented for D&D.

And? The question did not state "Which original creature do you think is dumbest?" Dumb as a...mythological...creature, dumb as a D&D creature.

"ITS STARE CAN KILL!"

"Why hasn't anyone died?"

"Well, it's head is VERY heavy you see. So, it can't actually stare at anyone?"

"You've gotten into the Oracle's special stash again, haven't you?"

Players

If I had to choose on the basis of artwork, this would get my vote.
Also, the 1st edition psionics rules were terrible so using a monster with psionic powers was... problematic. I never bothered unless I wanted a gratuitous TPK. Which I didn't.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2181[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Michael Gray;1022138And? The question did not state "Which original creature do you think is dumbest?" Dumb as a...mythological...creature, dumb as a D&D creature.

Out of curiosity then, do you have a contender for lamest original D&D creature?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022096The dumbest D&D creature?

Players.

Quote from: tenbones;1022144Players

I can't seem to find these in any monster manual...

Quote from: Manic Modron;1022120The bunny-stump was a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing.

As much as I have to admit that modrons are pretty silly (I love the things, though), I'd have to say that all the creatures who are 100% made exclusively as a middle finger to PCs are all crowding the top level for me.   That monster that is a living floor leaps to mind.  Cloakers, I am pretty sure started out just waiting around for a PC to put it on, that sort of thing.  The aforementioned bunny-stump. Boo.

Someone made a blog post a few years ago with all of the Fuck You monsters. All of those were there, as well as the mimic, the fake ceiling, the ear grubs that attack door listeners, and the aforementioned bunny stump (which I think got first place.)  I wish I had bookmarked it.

Edit: I was going to give the award to the Roving Mauler, a lions head with 5 legs and no body. But it turns out that its an actual demon from a 16th century Goetic demonomicon. That gives it some bona fides.

modron, duckbunny, goblinsticker

Quote from: Manic Modron;1022160Out of curiosity then, do you have a contender for lamest original D&D creature?

There are some good ones already in the list (flail snail, duckbunny) so I'll add...vegepygmies. They're pretty dumb, though you could Tucker's Kobold them I suppose.

Not really one creature, and they aren't particularly lame individually, but did we really need all those races who basically amounted to goblin, bigger goblin, even bigger goblin, etc?

I have a lot of affection for D&D's bizarre menagerie of oddball monsters drawn from classical myth, the literature of Borges... and dime-store Hong Kong bootleg Ultraman toys. There is a certain "The ridiculous and sublime are not necessarily opposites" je ne sais quoi to powerful heroes having to regard brain moles, vegepygmies, and giant flies as serious threats.

The Adherer - a Semi-intelligent, Lawful Evil (?) thing that looks like a mummy but isn't, it's just a sticky humanoid

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2182[/ATTACH]

And I say this as someone who loves the Fiend Folio for what it is (incidentally, I owned the FF before I got a Monster Manual...it was a Christmas present along with the Moldvay Basic set and U1 Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh...were my initial forays into D&D a little outre? you bet)

Quote from: Rod's Duo Narcotics;1022188The Adherer - a Semi-intelligent, Lawful Evil (?) thing that looks like a mummy but isn't, it's just a sticky humanoid

There is this whole weird sub-genre of monsters in AD&D 1st Ed where their whole gimmick is "You think it's undead, but when your cleric tries to turn it... Ha ha, suckers! Fuck you!". The pseudo-undead in the Monster Manual II (Which I still maintain is a far more absurd tome than the exquisitely weird Fiend Folio) being the worst offender.

Apparently a lot of AD&D DMs felt turning was over-powered or abused.

Gelatinous Cube. Black Pudding. Green Slime. They may be iconic, but they just seem like a stupid idea to me.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;1022193There is this whole weird sub-genre of monsters in AD&D 1st Ed where their whole gimmick is "You think it's undead, but when your cleric tries to turn it... Ha ha, suckers! Fuck you!". The pseudo-undead in the Monster Manual II (Which I still maintain is a far more absurd tome than the exquisitely weird Fiend Folio) being the worst offender.

Apparently a lot of AD&D DMs felt turning was over-powered or abused.

I can almost hear Rush's Permanent Waves playing in the background when I visualize your scenario

Quote from: markmohrfield;1022177Not really one creature, and they aren't particularly lame individually, but did we really need all those races who basically amounted to goblin, bigger goblin, even bigger goblin, etc?

Yes! Otherwise how would you be able to tell them apart? :o

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;1022193There is this whole weird sub-genre of monsters in AD&D 1st Ed where their whole gimmick is "You think it's undead, but when your cleric tries to turn it... Ha ha, suckers! Fuck you!". The pseudo-undead in the Monster Manual II (Which I still maintain is a far more absurd tome than the exquisitely weird Fiend Folio) being the worst offender.

Apparently a lot of AD&D DMs felt turning was over-powered or abused.

Or. Someone at White Dwarf thought it made perfect sense for some wizard or god to create things that look like undead as a fake out. Hell. Keep on the Borderlands has zombies you cant turn because the cult made some necklaces of protection from turning and outfitted their zombies with them. So instead of crying like a baby that the mean ol DM is messin with your precious clerics powah, just maybee realize that gosh! Not everything is 100% predictable. Which you somehow missed in a game where you can FAIL to turn undead, or be so low level they just laugh at you and your puny god/goddess/eldritch horror/accountant/thingy.

Quote from: Graewulf;1022199Gelatinous Cube. Black Pudding. Green Slime. They may be iconic, but they just seem like a stupid idea to me.

You failed biology class (or had a really sucky biology class in which case it isnt your fault) didnt you? Get a microscope or hit up Youtube and watch these things in action.

Not fun fact: Back in the 80s or 90s where we used to live we had some sort of amoeba colony infestation in a local lake or pond. At least one person died. Rare but it happens.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1022122My second thought was Gelatinous Cube just to see if I could get a rise out of you ... :)

To be fair, the Gelatinous Cube we ended up with was not the one he envisioned.

Quote from: Omega;1022226So instead of crying like a baby that the mean ol DM is messin with your precious clerics powah, just maybee realize that gosh! Not everything is 100% predictable. Which you somehow missed in a game where...

Quote from: Omega;1022228You failed biology class (or had a really sucky biology class in which case it isnt your fault) didnt you? Get a microscope or hit up Youtube and watch these things in action.

We get it. You feel superior to people complaining about things being stupid in a thread where that is the entire premise. Is our beloved game that has endured over 40 years of scrutiny too effetely fragile to endure criticism, or did life just pee in your cheerios this morning?

QuoteNot fun fact: Back in the 80s or 90s where we used to live we had some sort of amoeba colony infestation in a local lake or pond. At least one person died. Rare but it happens.

That happened near here within the past 4-5 years. Little girl I think. Really hits you in the 'one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic' zone.

Quote from: Omega;1022226So instead of crying like a baby that the mean ol DM is messin with your precious clerics powah, just maybee realize that gosh! Not everything is 100% predictable. Which you somehow missed in a game where you can FAIL to turn undead, or be so low level they just laugh at you and your puny god/goddess/eldritch horror/accountant/thingy.

You apparently saw some weird rancor in my post that was not at all intended. Far from it. Not only did I not cry over the use of these monsters, I in fact have affection for them. Particularly the adherer, which IIRC I used in the first dungeon I ever designed back in '81 or '82. The genuinely creepy Brothers of the Pine are another similar critter from the same era that I really dug.

Trust me, when I'm mad about something you'll fucking know it.

The Rust Monster.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1022303The Rust Monster.

What do you expect from something Gary yanked out of a bag of plastic toy monsters, took one look at the color, and said "Hey, look, it's a rust monster!  When it hits you your armor rusts."

And it took less time than it took me to type.

He yanked it out of his ass on the spur of the moment.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022306What do you expect from something Gary yanked out of a bag of plastic toy monsters, took one look at the color, and said "Hey, look, it's a rust monster!  When it hits you your armor rusts."

And it took less time than it took me to type.

He yanked it out of his ass on the spur of the moment.

Great story!

It's always been a tough competition with multiple contenders for the title and after reading this thread, I was reminded of new favourites.
But basically, everything mentioned in the thread is worthy of the title.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022306What do you expect from something Gary yanked out of a bag of plastic toy monsters, took one look at the color, and said "Hey, look, it's a rust monster!  When it hits you your armor rusts."

And it took less time than it took me to type.

He yanked it out of his ass on the spur of the moment.

I actually have that plastic toy, along with the "Bulette" and probably something else. My kid keeps them with his dinosaours and animals.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022306What do you expect from something Gary yanked out of a bag of plastic toy monsters, took one look at the color, and said "Hey, look, it's a rust monster!  When it hits you your armor rusts."

And it took less time than it took me to type.

He yanked it out of his ass on the spur of the moment.

That's often the best way of coming up with creatures. I did that once in a Star Wars game when characters were crawling through the ventilation system and I made a joke about how air vents are always so spotless and dust free. A minute later, they were being chased by vent cleaning droids that looked like giant rotating scrub brushes. I pulled out a wire brush drill attachment to use as a mini. :D

The Rust Monster and Disenchanter. Nothing says fun killer like rusting and removing magic from weapons. What bothers me is some designers try to give bullshit excuses for players not outright slaughtering either, both. That's why I like the 13th Age designers. Under rust Monster in their bestiary they don't write much assuming quite correctly players will kill off both.

Quote from: sureshot;1022380What bothers me is some designers try to give bullshit excuses for players not outright slaughtering either, both.

Oh god, like what?  Are they endangered and you get fined for poaching?

Quote from: Manic Modron;1022384Oh god, like what?  Are they endangered and you get fined for poaching?

They usually "they can be useful, heroes don't that, attacking a defenseless animal. etc" In the Misfit Monsters Redeemed book from Paizo the devs try to make a case for not outright killing off a Disenchanter. Yeah no thanks fuck that.

Oh, waa waa waa.  Your sword rusted.  Boo hoo.

So go find another, better one.

I fucking hate players who piss themselves and shit their panties about "fuck you monsters."  If you want the game to be on easy mode, go play My Little Pony.

Rust monsters, disenchanters, chameleon monsters, invisible monsters, level draining monsters.... bring 'em on!

The greater danger, the greater the reward in victory.

"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all!"

James Graham, 5th Earl of Montrose
1612 to 1650
Royalist General during the English Civil War

The old fucknuts who are always posting their "we gamed up hill both ways... in the snow". Worst monsters ever.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1022407The old fucknuts who are always posting their "we gamed up hill both ways... in the snow". Worst monsters ever.

*pisses in your boot*

Either ALL monsters are "fuck you" monsters, or none are.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022161I can't seem to find these in any monster manual...

They're not supposed to be in the Monster Manual -DMG either.

Quote from: sureshot;1022380The Rust Monster and Disenchanter. Nothing says fun killer like rusting and removing magic from weapons. What bothers me is some designers try to give bullshit excuses for players not outright slaughtering either, both. That's why I like the 13th Age designers. Under rust Monster in their bestiary they don't write much assuming quite correctly players will kill off both.

And you know the only class that it really screws over?  The one that relies on gear.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022398Oh, waa waa waa.  Your sword rusted.  Boo hoo.

So go find another, better one.

How, exactly?  Do DM's magically give a new weapon, the next encounter?  As a consolation prize.  Because if your Fighter type is without any armour or weapons, you're down one combatant.  Unless you're saying that the Fighter doesn't actually matter in D&D, then again, you do make a good case on that.

Out of honest curiousity:  How much did unarmed damage do in earlier editions?  I forget what AD&D 2e was, I THINK it was a d4, but I honestly don't remember.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022398I fucking hate players who piss themselves and shit their panties about "fuck you monsters."  If you want the game to be on easy mode, go play My Little Pony.

And here I thought that Walker was the 'Hardest of The Hardcore' gamers, but you definitely have him beat.  I thought RPG's was about having fun with friends, but apparently there's only one true way and man, I've been doing it wrong for over 30 years.  I've been having BadWrongFun all this time.  Damn.  I guess I better stop playing RPGs...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022398Rust monsters, disenchanters, chameleon monsters, invisible monsters, level draining monsters.... bring 'em on!

Do you have any idea how this makes you look to some of us?  It's not a positive thing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022398The greater danger, the greater the reward in victory.

You kill the rust monster, you get...  a club.  Because it's not metal.  That's pretty much it, everything else has metal on it, leather armour has metal buckles, belts do to, most boots, rings, amulets, axe heads...  Oh wait, potions, assuming the setting has glass bottles.

But it's THE GREATEST REWARD EVAR!

Are you for real?  Please tell me this is another of your lame jokes.  Please.

"Victory" is not a single encounter.  Okay, you lost your sword and armor.  Now instead of you helping guard your mates, your mates have to cover you.  Your whole plan and march order is disrupted.

Yeah, that's cool.  The fun of a game is when your plan goes to gooey shit and you have to improvise it all, repairing a duotronic computer circuit with stone knives and bearskins.

If you play well, you'll make it back alive.  If you got ANY loot on your adventure, you can replace your weapon and armor, at least with ordinary stuff.  Was it magic?  Well, that sucks.  But if there was one magic sword out there, are there more?  What level are you?  Do you have enough money to hire a sage?

I'm totally serious.  The fun begins when things stop going as planned.  Just like I said someplace about wargaming -- "it's no fun playing against somebody who's no good."  A 57mm US antitank gun won't knock out a Tiger 1 from the front.  But I set up my defense so I got the tiger at about 300 yards right in the ass, and the engine obligingly blew up as the Germans scurried around frantically trying to figure out where the hell I was.

Succeeding against difficult odds is something I find a lot of fun.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022412*pisses in your boot*

Could be enlarged prostate. May want to get it checked out.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1022432Could be enlarged prostate. May want to get it checked out.

My doctor's keeping an eye on it.  Thanks for your concern.  Fortunately my PSA level is low and stable.

See, I don't mind monsters that are specifically set up to target characters.  That is fine.  Rust monsters (oxidation beasts, if you are looking for the Reaper mini)?  I'm alright with them.  It takes some extra tactics to work around the things and they are more scary to some characters than others, but otherwise, sure.  Disenchanters?  Okay, sure.  It is a high magic sort of place, something is going to want to eat the magic.  

The monsters I'm talking about are more ... I don't know... "meta" in their fuck-you-ness.  The ear grubs that do nothing except wait around in a door for somebody to listen to it.  The cloakers that just sit around on a hook and hope some passerby is cold enough to put one on.  The floating sporeballs that look so exactly like beholders that PCs are bound to shoot first and Negate Poison later.  The creatures who have an ecological niche so narrow that you couldn't shove a slip of paper through it.

Those are the monsters that cross a line in my imagination between "gonzo but believable world" right on over to "Now you are just jerking off on the graph paper."

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1022407The old fucknuts who are always posting their "we gamed up hill both ways... in the snow". Worst monsters ever.

Gronan has stated that he is actively channeling the grumpier interpretations of Dennis the Menace's Mr. Wilson as a character guide for his online interactions. I don't really take offense or guffaw too much on it, since it is so clearly an affectation.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022426"Rust monsters, disenchanters, chameleon monsters, invisible monsters, level draining monsters.... bring 'em on!"

Do you have any idea how this makes you look to some of us?  It's not a positive thing.

I don't think the rest of us have a problem with that particular sentence. If Gronan wants to be all 'bring 'em on!' over challenges, let him. Overcoming difficult challenges is its' own reward for many people. That's his prerogative.

I will agree (more with Ras Algethi) on the point that he is putting forth the same old bluster ("we gamed up hill both ways... in the snow"is a pretty convenient shorthand) that generally implies that back in the good old glory days gamers gamed harder, stronger, better, more intelligently, and with less whining, etc. And that I just plain call BS. I've met several old old old school gamers--came to TTRPGs from wargaming, started with D&D with the LBBs, etc., etc., etc. who are without a doubt just as much whinny, thin-skinned, hissy-fit-throwing poor losers and everything else as the grognards routinely complain about 'the kids today' doing. There are good, intelligent, competent, mature gamers from every era, and who enjoy every game/gaming style. There's no fast-track to excellence, including date-of-birth or preferred game. It's unfortunate that these pissing contest threads keep coming up pretending otherwise, but that seems to be the nature of online discussions.  

Quote from: Manic Modron;1022440See, I don't mind monsters that are specifically set up to target characters.  That is fine.  Rust monsters (oxidation beasts, if you are looking for the Reaper mini)?  I'm alright with them.  It takes some extra tactics to work around the things and they are more scary to some characters than others, but otherwise, sure.  Disenchanters?  Okay, sure.  It is a high magic sort of place, something is going to want to eat the magic.  

It's just another nuance, requiring another tactic. Reducing a parties' hit points all to 0 does a great job of depleting their equipment lists as well. Golems kill mages, rust monsters decimate fighters, undead kill everything (but less so if you have clerics),  ghouls have a hard time against parties full of elves but green dragons consider them appetizers. It's almost like it is a team activity.

QuoteThe monsters I'm talking about are more ... I don't know... "meta" in their fuck-you-ness.  The ear grubs that do nothing except wait around in a door for somebody to listen to it.  The cloakers that just sit around on a hook and hope some passerby is cold enough to put one on.  The floating sporeballs that look so exactly like beholders that PCs are bound to shoot first and Negate Poison later.  The creatures who have an ecological niche so narrow that you couldn't shove a slip of paper through it.

Those are the monsters that cross a line in my imagination between "gonzo but believable world" right on over to "Now you are just jerking off on the graph paper."

I go back and forth on this (although, 'things invented in the first decade of the game tend to be very gamist and entire monsters exist as a countermeasure to PC tactics' is... well it just is what it is. Expect it to be in the books and don't use said things if they break your verisimilitude. Coins also conveniently all weigh the same amount and dragons are color coded for your convenience). thieves listening at doors invites designers to invent Ear Seekers, which invites others to invent listening cones with mesh coverings and so on and so forth--in concept the idea is fine. I think it worked better before every player had read the monster manuals. If that arms race happens organically in your campaign, it works fine, I feel. If you come into it with "A is countered by B, but B is countered by C," it's easy to feel like, "yes, so all A's use C's every time because they know about B's, so what is the point to all this?" (and let's be clear, not be wrong). I generally prefer not to have Ear Seekers in my games, but have something, something to keep the players on their toes (preferably not as lethal as Ear Seekers, because death is actually less awesome than inconvenience most of the time).

Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

I think he is wrong. Sure get a new weapon or armor. Sorry but monsters that require me or another player to go "mother may I?" to the DM are not only full of crap if I could I would wish them out of existence. A enemy stealing my stuff or damaging it go right ahead that's smart tactic. I won't apologize for hating both monsters.

Not to mention the entire point of the thread is essentially asking posters which monsters they don't like. Why would anyone expect such a thread to be one filled with compliments toward monsters. It's like getting angry because people acted in a way that was to be expected.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1022440Those are the monsters that cross a line in my imagination between "gonzo but believable world" right on over to "Now you are just jerking off on the graph paper."

D&D, from day one, has been very meta-game in its implementation.

In the OD&D rules, monsters can see in the dark.  The rules EXPLICITLY state that if a monster is hired by a PC, the monster loses the ability to see in the dark.

It makes absolutely no fucking sense in terms of constructing a universe, but it adds a really interesting set of challenges to the game.  I like that.

Quote from: sureshot;1022447Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

Though I do think he has too much time to waste when he lashes out at a poster for responding to the original point of the thread. I was asked what monster I thought was the dumbest in D&D and I answered.

What pisses me off is the idea of "fuck you monsters."  It's an absurd notion.  It's right up there with all the posts complaining about "Gygax inventing things to make the game less fun."

This comes under the heading of "Are you listening to what's falling out of your face?"  Gary sitting around rubbing his hands together cackling "Nya ha ha, this will REALLY ruin everybody's fun!"

I mean, seriously?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022445I will agree (more with Ras Algethi) on the point that he is putting forth the same old bluster ("we gamed up hill both ways... in the snow"is a pretty convenient shorthand) that generally implies that back in the good old glory days gamers gamed harder, stronger, better, more intelligently, and with less whining, etc. And that I just plain call BS. I've met several old old old school gamers--came to TTRPGs from wargaming, started with D&D with the LBBs, etc., etc., etc. who are without a doubt just as much whinny, thin-skinned, hissy-fit-throwing poor losers and everything else as the grognards routinely complain about 'the kids today' doing. There are good, intelligent, competent, mature gamers from every era, and who enjoy every game/gaming style.

You are absolutely, completely correct that there were plenty of whiny-ass pants-pissing little wankers in the old days, and I spent a lot of time culling them from my game.

The difference seems, at least to me, to more accommodation of people who want "easy mode" play.

And it's spreading.  After GaryCon either two or three years ago, somebody posted a long screed about how horrible a game Dawn Patrol was because once he got shot down, he was out of the game.

It's a wargame about WW1 aircraft.  You get shot down, you lose.  Losing happens, and that day it happened to him.  Don't play wargames if you're going to whine when you lose.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022398Oh, waa waa waa.  Your sword rusted.  Boo hoo.

So go find another, better one.

I fucking hate players who piss themselves and shit their panties about "fuck you monsters."  If you want the game to be on easy mode, go play My Little Pony.

Didn't you mention your localcrewlikes Pathfinder, Glorious General? I've got you covered:)!

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/125583/Ponyfinder--Campaign-Setting
...yes, that's exactly what you think it is;).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022428"Victory" is not a single encounter.  Okay, you lost your sword and armor.  Now instead of you helping guard your mates, your mates have to cover you.  Your whole plan and march order is disrupted.

Yeah, that's cool.  The fun of a game is when your plan goes to gooey shit and you have to improvise it all, repairing a duotronic computer circuit with stone knives and bearskins.

If you play well, you'll make it back alive.  If you got ANY loot on your adventure, you can replace your weapon and armor, at least with ordinary stuff.  Was it magic?  Well, that sucks.  But if there was one magic sword out there, are there more?  What level are you?  Do you have enough money to hire a sage?

I'm totally serious.  The fun begins when things stop going as planned.  Just like I said someplace about wargaming -- "it's no fun playing against somebody who's no good."  A 57mm US antitank gun won't knock out a Tiger 1 from the front.  But I set up my defense so I got the tiger at about 300 yards right in the ass, and the engine obligingly blew up as the Germans scurried around frantically trying to figure out where the hell I was.

Succeeding against difficult odds is something I find a lot of fun.

That's been my attitude since before I knew what "a wargame" is (there were other games where I could practice it).

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022439My doctor's keeping an eye on it.  Thanks for your concern.  Fortunately my PSA level is low and stable.

Shouldn't that be PTA, from "Piss-Take Attitude":D?
...And now I have to make up an Exalted Charm for Piss-Take Attitude. Probably in the Socialize tree.

Quote from: sureshot;1022447Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

I think he is wrong. Sure get a new weapon or armor. Sorry but monsters that require me or another player to go "mother may I?" to the DM are not only full of crap if I could I would wish them out of existence.

Then don't go "Mother May I" on the Referee.

Also, I'm pretty sure Gronan doesn't think you're wrong to hate the monsters. From my vantage point, it seems he thinks the stated reasons for picking those particular monsters are the "full of crap" part.
Apologies, Gronan, if I've misenterpreted you.

Quote from: sureshot;1022447Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

I don't have that issue, it's the authoritative stance he takes with it however, that's what I complain about.

Quote from: sureshot;1022447I think he is wrong. Sure get a new weapon or armor. Sorry but monsters that require me or another player to go "mother may I?" to the DM are not only full of crap if I could I would wish them out of existence. A enemy stealing my stuff or damaging it go right ahead that's smart tactic. I won't apologize for hating both monsters.

That's the issue I have.

Not to mention the entire point of the thread is essentially asking posters which monsters they don't like. Why would anyone expect such a thread to be one filled with compliments toward monsters. It's like getting angry because people acted in a way that was to be expected.[/QUOTE]

And personally, I don't find the point of the Flumph.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022445Gronan has stated that he is actively channeling the grumpier interpretations of Dennis the Menace's Mr. Wilson as a character guide for his online interactions. I don't really take offense or guffaw too much on it, since it is so clearly an affectation.

That's not a good thing.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022445I don't think the rest of us have a problem with that particular sentence. If Gronan wants to be all 'bring 'em on!' over challenges, let him. Overcoming difficult challenges is its' own reward for many people. That's his prerogative.

Fair enough, it's the implied tone I take exception.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022445I will agree (more with Ras Algethi) on the point that he is putting forth the same old bluster ("we gamed up hill both ways... in the snow"is a pretty convenient shorthand) that generally implies that back in the good old glory days gamers gamed harder, stronger, better, more intelligently, and with less whining, etc. And that I just plain call BS. I've met several old old old school gamers--came to TTRPGs from wargaming, started with D&D with the LBBs, etc., etc., etc. who are without a doubt just as much whinny, thin-skinned, hissy-fit-throwing poor losers and everything else as the grognards routinely complain about 'the kids today' doing. There are good, intelligent, competent, mature gamers from every era, and who enjoy every game/gaming style. There's no fast-track to excellence, including date-of-birth or preferred game. It's unfortunate that these pissing contest threads keep coming up pretending otherwise, but that seems to be the nature of online discussions.

I see it more with those who claim to be 'grognards', often citing their way is right and should be the only way, and anyone suggesting something else, like this thread, for example, they seem to take it as a personal attack on them, rather than on some of the design decisions we may not like.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022450You are absolutely, completely correct that there were plenty of whiny-ass pants-pissing little wankers in the old days, and I spent a lot of time culling them from my game.

The difference seems, at least to me, to more accommodation of people who want "easy mode" play.

And it's spreading.  After GaryCon either two or three years ago, somebody posted a long screed about how horrible a game Dawn Patrol was because once he got shot down, he was out of the game.

It's a wargame about WW1 aircraft.  You get shot down, you lose.  Losing happens, and that day it happened to him.  Don't play wargames if you're going to whine when you lose.

What the hell?  Are you for real?  What is wrong with people having different fun than you?  Seriously, you're coming off like some of the more entitled video gamers, I've seen.  Ones claiming that 'true gamers' don't play X game (insert name of video game you hate) and if they are having a good time, they're to be sneered at for doing it wrong.  Like the console vs. PC vs. phone/tablets 'war' that's going on currently.

Also maybe I'm missing something, and I'm being serious here.

Does Garycon have you pay per game slot?  The local Con up here does that, for people who want to be in the ground level and be guaranteed a spot at the table, but don't pay for a day/weekend pass.  Simply because they fill up fast.  So you've payed for a 4 hour block, and suddenly within 5 minutes you're out?  And you can't go to another game/table, because it's full up.  That's a ripoff, dood.  However, if these are demoes with drop in/drop out capacity, then fine, knock yourself out.  But at the same time, the guy went to have fun, to get a feel for the game, and suddenly he's out?  I can sympathize with him.

Not everyone has fun your way, and quite frankly, I like that about gaming, all gaming.  It can, and should in my opinion, accommodate us all.

So nobody ever loses?  Everybody gets a prize?

He got shot down.  He lost. It happens.  It's been happening at every GenCon since GenCon I.

People who can't stand to lose shouldn't play wargames.  This is not a value judgement, despite what you want to think.  Just like the Joker said "Decent people shouldn't live in Gotham City, they'd be happier somewhere else."

Losing happens and sometimes it happens to you.  If you don't like the game, don't play.  Don't play wargames if you aren't willing to face the possibility that you might get handed your ass in a bucket.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022545So nobody ever loses?  Everybody gets a prize?

He got shot down.  He lost. It happens.  It's been happening at every GenCon since GenCon I.

People who can't stand to lose shouldn't play wargames.  This is not a value judgement, despite what you want to think.  Just like the Joker said "Decent people shouldn't live in Gotham City, they'd be happier somewhere else."

Losing happens and sometimes it happens to you.  If you don't like the game, don't play.  Don't play wargames if you aren't willing to face the possibility that you might get handed your ass in a bucket.

I guess he wanted to play it like you play D&D and just make a new character and get right back in.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1022548I guess he wanted to play it like you play D&D and just make a new character and get right back in.

Well, that may be true.  IN that case, we're back once again to "make expectations clear beforehand," which I have ALWAYS said is vital.

One of the differences, of course, in a wargame is that the "other side" is players too; "we shot that son of a bitch down and here he comes again?  What the fuck?"

Quote from: sureshot;1022447Let Gronan talk he is entitled to his own opinion.

You're absolutely right, I basically put words in his mouth. I apologize. I should have followed my instinct and waited until I was in a better position to formulate my thoughts and in a technologically better position to respond*.

*I am currently in my father-in-law's snow-birder' double-wide trailer in "Trailer estates" in Florida, typing on a tiny smart phone connected to a hot-spot on a plan that charges by the gigabyte. That part is them being "all I do online is email" types and is completely understandable (if inconvenient for me now), but this whole experience has thrown me off my A game (such as it is).
[/size]

Quote from: Gronan of SimmeryaYou are absolutely, completely correct that there were plenty of whiny-ass pants-pissing little wankers in the old days, and I spent a lot of time culling them from my game.

The difference seems, at least to me, to more accommodation of people who want "easy mode" play.

And it's spreading. After GaryCon either two or three years ago, somebody posted a long screed about how horrible a game Dawn Patrol was because once he got shot down, he was out of the game.

It's a wargame about WW1 aircraft. You get shot down, you lose. Losing happens, and that day it happened to him. Don't play wargames if you're going to whine when you lose.

This could be a difference in personal experience (where we both consider our own to be representative of the greater gaming culture), rather than a difference in philosophy, but I don't really see it. I mean, yes there will always be new gamers and people who are just learning the ropes, and as a general rule they will be a little more complainy and upset when they lose. But I do not see a general trend in that direction for the greater gaming population.
Beyond that, I'm not sure I believe in 'easy mode.' Certainly not for TTRPGs. Pundey made the same statement in the 'roll 5d6' thread and I didn't see it in that situation either**. Easy mode in a TTRPG is a DM only putting you up against (or populating the world with, in sandbox play) situations you can handle. There aren't 'easy mode' games in and of themselves because if you are more powerful, you simply take on greater challenges.
**note: I kinda got primed by experiences on Dragonsfoot to assume that people people saying that they play with less generous stat-generation methods as flat out declaring their penises longer and nothing more, so this might just be my damage.[/size]

Regarding the Dawn Patrol (which, specifically, I know nothing about) example, first and foremost one person writing a post tells us nothing except that one person really disliked it. But more to the point--there seems to be a thought going around (which I at least understand, if not agree with) that a good game (particularly long games) should not leave any participants with nothing to do for huge stretches. It creates the situation where 6-8 friends get together to play a huge game, and 2-3 get eliminated 30-40% through the play-time. Then they start a different game, which isn't done when the first is started. And thus the whole group never ends up playing one game together again for the rest of the evening. I'm not sure that that is actually a particularly important goal (so what?, you're still all having fun in the same room, etc.), and there are tons of examples where that's not the case (you can be eliminated and/or someone get an insurmountable lead in Monopoly, the second half of Settlers of Catan is mostly a forgone conclusion, Magic: the Gathering drafts routinely run into the situation of two people finishing their match in 5 minutes and have to play 'not counting' games or just chew the fat while the rest of the draft finishes the round, etc.), but I don't feel that people ascribing to that belief in what-makes-a-game-'good' means that they are whiny or want 'easy mode,' etc. They just think that a game like Sorry, Talisman, or Robo-Rally (where if you are eliminated, you start over, with a hefty amont of ground you have to catch up) serve the gameplay experience better. I'm content to disagree with that perspective without assuming it is a desire for easy mode.
I of course can't know whether that's what they thought was wrong with Dawn Patrol, but it is a situation where I've seen people complain about games where it is not because they are in some way whiny brats.

Quote from: Christopher BradyThat's not a good thing.

Which, his behavior, or my not caring about it, since it is a schtick?

QuoteI see it more with those who claim to be 'grognards', often citing their way is right and should be the only way, and anyone suggesting something else, like this thread, for example, they seem to take it as a personal attack on them, rather than on some of the design decisions we may not like.

I will agree that there is some of that going on in this thread. And this board overall has bit of a leaning where when people remember themselves they put forth the position that it's just a game and there's no right way to play, etc., but when people relax they let slip that they think their interpretation is a little more equal than others (leaning towards OSR/TSR).
The thing is:

• There's no such thing as true objectivity/impartiality, and every single board is going to lean one way or the other.
• I absolutely, postively, and I can only assure you this is with genuine honesty, simply do not understand how you never seem to recognize that you do the exact same thing going in the other direction. Mind you, I want to recognize that I notice that you have made great strides. So much so that when you recently went back to the old CB, it was jarring. But it's there. You would not be pock marking your responses with comments in the vein of "I don't remember did 2e have..." or "I've barely played OD&D, so I wouldn't know" if you hadn't been taken to task so many times for making claims about the old school games, and old school gamers.

Now, having you around is a good check against the other direction, but 'we have partisans in both directions' is not the optimal solution.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022502I see it more with those who claim to be 'grognards', often citing their way is right and should be the only way, and anyone suggesting something else, like this thread, for example, they seem to take it as a personal attack on them, rather than on some of the design decisions we may not like.

So talking about "fuck you" monsters is not claiming that their way is right?  Fascinating.

Now, Pundy has said he doesn't like level draining undead because the mechanism models nothing in the literature.  (emphasis mine)  NOT because they are a "fuck you" monster or because "it ruins the fun."

If you cannot see the difference... well, frankly, much would be made clear.

And yeah, I'm a grumpy old curmudgeon.  Having to defend liking what I like for forty years does that to one.  And yeah, I've been told I'm "playing it wrong" -- not just differently, WRONG -- by subgroups of this hobby for that long.  For liking undead that drain levels, for liking save or die, for liking monsters that actually put characters in real danger of death or loss, for liking hit points, for liking fire and forget magic, for liking sandbox rather than preplotted campaigns, for liking XP for gold, and for a ton of other things I can't enumerate off the top of my head.

Aresholes to the lot of 'em, says I.

Unless I'm mistaken this thread began to go into the wrong direction.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022564So talking about "fuck you" monsters is not claiming that their way is right?  Fascinating.

If wrongfun was implied by my posts, I apologise for setting it up like that.  The sort of thing I was talking about are just  water-chestnuts I have to pick out of my D&D stir fry.  

Hireling monsters suddenly losing their ability to see in the dark sounds like it could lead into a hilarious scene though.  "Alright, my first mission with my new bosses!  Step one, scout out this pitch dark cave and...and... OH MY DEMON LORDS I'M BLIND!"

Fair enough.

Myself, I think that among the stupid monsters are the "standard monster but different."  I don't remember the details because I tend to purge them, but stuff like "looks like a zombie but isn't" in the Bone Hill module, that sort of stuff.  It was called something like a "zombire," which only made it worse.

I can actually accept something like a "gas spore" because it's an obvious piss-take easier than "looks like a kobold but is actually a troll" or whatever.  Jack Vance's wizards had the sense of humor and social development of a badly behaved 13 year old; they would create shit like the Mimic and Gas Spore just to fuck with people.  So to me, at least, that sort of fits with the source material.  And they'd laugh themselves sick over the Rust Monster.

In point of fact, the Dying Earth is full of real assholes.

And worse name goes to the Neo-Otyugh.  Close second is the Otyugh, which was an attempt to include the Ahoggya from Tekumel by filing the serial numbers off.
In fact, there are several Tekumel monsters renamed in the later D&D materials.

Quote from: joriandrake;1022581Unless I'm mistaken this thread began to go into the wrong direction.

If you REALLY want to wind me up, just insist that the ONLY POSSIBLE reason I play OD&D is for "nostalgia," and that I cannot actually possibly enjoy the game for its own sake.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022600If you REALLY want to wind me up, just insist that the ONLY POSSIBLE reason I play OD&D is for "nostalgia," and that I cannot actually possibly enjoy the game for its own sake.

  I would guess it is like musical taste.  Most people have their musical tastes cemented to a degree at certain points in their lives.  I have a feeling RPG taste is similar.

Let's be honest though both are "fuck you" style monsters imo. In my anecdotal gaming experiences. Almost no one has evey thanked me for using them. Using the classic monsters like Orcs, Ogres, Goblins, Lizardfolk. The group enjoys seeing them. If they actually existed they both would be hunted to extinction animal rights activists be damned. I'm not saying never use them. Use them in moderation.

Might be.  I think background matters too.  I was a wargamer before I ever played in Greyhawk; I was a wargamer before there WAS a Greyhawk.  I came to D&D as an interesting if odd variant on skirmish wargames.  This will affect how I view them, especially pseudomedievalish fantasy.

Just like I cut my comic book teeth on the four-colors of the 60s and 70s, and that affects how I view superhero RPGs.

After a calm bit of retrospect, I don't think I'd have as much of an issue if the game was set up like a Dying Earth sort if world, but in the 15 or so years of gaming nobody has run a setting like that.  It has always been relatively mythological not-earths where that sort of "a wizard did it" seems more like a flimsy excuse than something that actually happens in game.

Might be worth turning some of those assumptions on their head soon...

Quote from: sureshot;1022603Let's be honest though both are "fuck you" style monsters imo. In my anecdotal gaming experiences. Almost no one has evey thanked me for using them. Using the classic monsters like Orcs, Ogres, Goblins, Lizardfolk. The group enjoys seeing them. If they actually existed they both would be hunted to extinction animal rights activists be damned. I'm not saying never use them. Do not expect your players to be happy.

Interestingly, many referees I know like them because they shake the players up.  And I still dispute the 'fuck you monster' designation.  Do I like having my character drained a level?  Hell no.  But I'd feel cheated if the referee's undead did not drain levels.  As a player I WANT disenchanters, rust monsters, level draining undead, save vs die poisons, and all the rest.  I don't see them as "fuck you monsters" at all.  I see them as part of a dangerous world.

Just like somewhere on this very site I had this conversation a few years back about WW2 gaming.  If I'm playing the Americans, no, I don't like having my Sherman reduced to flaming scrap iron at 1500 yards by a Panther, a Tiger, or even a Mark IV or StugIII with the long 75.  But I expect the Germans to have them, and if it turned out all they had was Mark Is and 38(t)s I'd feel cheated.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1022605After a calm bit of retrospect, I don't think I'd have as much of an issue if the game was set up like a Dying Earth sort if world, but in the 15 or so years of gaming nobody has run a setting like that.  It has always been relatively mythological not-earths where that sort of "a wizard did it" seems more like a flimsy excuse than something that actually happens in game.

Might be worth turning some of those assumptions on their head soon...

Interesting point.  We'd all read Dying Earth, and Gary's Greyhawk was VERY MUCH reminiscent of it.

Just like "cursed items."  Dying Earth is full of wizards talking about unsuccessful experiments.  Try to enchant your birdbath, get one syllable wrong, there's your Bowl of Watery Doom.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022549Well, that may be true.  IN that case, we're back once again to "make expectations clear beforehand," which I have ALWAYS said is vital.

One of the differences, of course, in a wargame is that the "other side" is players too; "we shot that son of a bitch down and here he comes again?  What the fuck?"

You can play easy mode if you want, that's your right.

One can play D&D or a rpg any which way the want. Onetrywayism does not have it's place in the hobby. I can respect a fellow gamer for defending certain elements of a rpg. Going into a thread to troll I won't respect.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1022631You can play easy mode if you want, that's your right.

In context of a zero sum wargame, that doesn't even make sense.  Zero out of five stars.

Quote from: Ras Algethi;1022631You can play easy mode if you want, that's your right.

Sure it is. And it's other people's right to decide whether they want to play the game you're playing. IME, that tends to sort things out;).

(While it might look that I'm being smug with the above and implying easy mode is inferior, it's not what I mean. I literally mean that I've seen such processes at work between different groups. At the end, everyone, or almost, had joined a group that fitted his or her playstyle.
And we all were the happier for it).

Granted, it might suck if you get knocked out of a game on a convention because of it. In that case, I recommend using your smartphone to read a book until the next game begins:D!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022398Oh, waa waa waa.  Your sword rusted.  Boo hoo.

So go find another, better one.

I fucking hate players who piss themselves and shit their panties about "fuck you monsters."  If you want the game to be on easy mode, go play My Little Pony.

Rust monsters, disenchanters, chameleon monsters, invisible monsters, level draining monsters.... bring 'em on!

The greater danger, the greater the reward in victory.

"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his desserts are small,
Who dares not put it to the touch,
To win or lose it all!"

James Graham, 5th Earl of Montrose
1612 to 1650
Royalist General during the English Civil War

No no no! According to village idiot in training...

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1022234We get it. You feel superior to people complaining about things being stupid in a thread where that is the entire premise. Is our beloved game that has endured over 40 years of scrutiny too effetely fragile to endure criticism, or did life just pee in your cheerios this morning?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022413Either ALL monsters are "fuck you" monsters, or none are.

According to some. Yes.

Quote from: sureshot;1022633One can play D&D or a rpg any which way the want. Onetrywayism does not have it's place in the hobby. I can respect a fellow gamer for defending certain elements of a rpg. Going into a thread to troll I won't respect.

You don't hang out here often, do you?  Sometimes, it seems that's all people do.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1022440See, I don't mind monsters that are specifically set up to target characters.  That is fine.  Rust monsters (oxidation beasts, if you are looking for the Reaper mini)?  I'm alright with them.  It takes some extra tactics to work around the things and they are more scary to some characters than others, but otherwise, sure.  Disenchanters?  Okay, sure.  It is a high magic sort of place, something is going to want to eat the magic.  

The monsters I'm talking about are more ... I don't know... "meta" in their fuck-you-ness.  The ear grubs that do nothing except wait around in a door for somebody to listen to it.  The cloakers that just sit around on a hook and hope some passerby is cold enough to put one on.  The floating sporeballs that look so exactly like beholders that PCs are bound to shoot first and Negate Poison later.  The creatures who have an ecological niche so narrow that you couldn't shove a slip of paper through it.

Those are the monsters that cross a line in my imagination between "gonzo but believable world" right on over to "Now you are just jerking off on the graph paper."

Personally even if the game does not say so. I view some of these monsters as essentially organic traps that someone bred or outright created specifically to fuck with adventurers. And others are good ol mother nature style mimicry. And a few are probably not specifically targeting adventurers.

The ear grub for example. Could be some wizard created it. Or perhaps its just like some other predatory larva that wait for the right conditions and then strike.
Cloakers dwell underground and pounce on people. They may look like a cloak when resting but oddly the description does not mention them actively using it as a disguise or lure. They seem to be essentially underground flying mantas/rays.
Gas Spores are either created by someone or mimicry. I lean to mimicry as its a common tactic in nature. Could be its to ward off creatures. Most know to leave beholders alone.

Except that there are in the real world creatures with nigh impossibly narrow niches. They are few. But they do exist.

Also note some of these were inspired by creatures from books and real life examples of mimicry.

But at the end of the day the most logical answer really is. "A wizard did it!" and failing that. "A god/goddess did it!"

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1022678You don't hang out here often, do you?  Sometimes, it seems that's all people do.

I do hang out here often. I choose to ignore some of the bullshit that some RPG edgelords spew here, elsewhere or in the real world. For the most part I respect my fellow forumites. When it comes to onetruwayism I will not.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022600If you REALLY want to wind me up, just insist that the ONLY POSSIBLE reason I play OD&D is for "nostalgia," and that I cannot actually possibly enjoy the game for its own sake.

I don't believe I wrote anything even close to this.

Quote from: joriandrake;1022719I don't believe I wrote anything even close to this.

Don't worry, he's got to uphold his shtick.

Aren't all monsters meant to "F" with the players, I thought that was the point of having adversaries. Some just do it better than others.

Quote from: joriandrake;1022719I don't believe I wrote anything even close to this.

Never said you did.  I was merely pointing out a fact.

Quote from: Omega;1022673No no no! According to village idiot in training...

If you disagree with my assessment of your previous behavior, I would suggest you clarify your position, or point out faulty assumptions or errors in my interpretation. Petty insults will get you nowhere.

QuoteExcept that there are in the real world creatures with nigh impossibly narrow niches. They are few. But they do exist.

Also note some of these were inspired by creatures from books and real life examples of mimicry.

But at the end of the day the most logical answer really is. "A wizard did it!" and failing that. "A god/goddess did it!"

I like the idea of creatures in a world full of adventurers evolving (or intelligently designed, or the like) to fill the narrow niche of 'adventurer screwer-over-er.' After all, adventurers, by all accounts, are a known and consistent part of these worlds (well before the specific adventurers controlled by the PCs came into the picture. Why wouldn't something have come along with ecologically profit off their existence?
Mind you, "A Wizard did it!" works just fine a well.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022736Never said you did.  I was merely pointing out a fact.

okay

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1022725Aren't all monsters meant to "F" with the players, I thought that was the point of having adversaries. Some just do it better than others.

I don't have a problem with most opponents if they're interesting, I do hate creatures like which suck XP/levels because I always felt like that breaks the xth wall. Even attacks which make your character age years is fine. To make a difference I would say I have no problem if creatures try to "f" the characters, but I do if they actually target the player at the table.

Quote from: joriandrake;1022770I don't have a problem with most opponents if they're interesting, I do hate creatures like which suck XP/levels because I always felt like that breaks the xth wall. Even attacks which make your character age years is fine. To make a difference I would say I have no problem if creatures try to "f" the characters, but I do if they actually target the player at the table.

Yeah, I can take it or leave it when it comes to level drain. I think permanent ability score drain better represents something such as a Vampire/ Lich attack. Save vs.  Con or loose permanent Con score of 1. As long as the Vampire has you grappled the drain attack auto hits and you just have to make the save or loose another point per round. I think it is more thematic and represents how a Vampire makes the person more sickly as they slide toward death (see also Hammer vampire movies).

But I don't feel Level drain is a direct attack on the player at the table, I just think the concept could have been handled better. I personally like the permanent wounds built into the DCC monster crit charts. And to me DCC can be more adversarial between DM and player, but it is handled better and "expected".

Lava Children. A fat Alfred E Neuman that is basically incorporeal to metal.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1022012Nilbog

We have a winner.

Quite a few if not most monsters in Paizo Misfit Monsters Redeemed book. In some cases they do a decent job of redeeming some dumb monsters in the book like Lava Children imo. Wolf in Sheeps clothing requires the group to be either total newbies to the hobby or just bored to be actually fooled by the creature. So if it kills say a Halfling it then uses the Halfling to lure new targets close to it. Yet somehow no one notices all the vines sticking in and out of the halfling.

Quote from: Rod's Duo Narcotics;1022188The Adherer - a Semi-intelligent, Lawful Evil (?) thing that looks like a mummy but isn't, it's just a sticky humanoid

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2182[/ATTACH]

And I say this as someone who loves the Fiend Folio for what it is (incidentally, I owned the FF before I got a Monster Manual...it was a Christmas present along with the Moldvay Basic set and U1 Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh...were my initial forays into D&D a little outre? you bet)

The Enveloper. A cylinder of flesh that beats you to death with fleshy appendages and then absorbs your abilities by enveloping you. For some reasons the ones you encounter have never done this before.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2187[/ATTACH]

It's Poppin' Fresh's brother!

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1022832It's Poppin' Fresh's brother!

LOL

What surprises me is that they including the Adherer in the Paizo book which I thought was interesting. Yet somehow the above was left out.

I wanna do a retro-clone that takes Lamentations of the Flame Princess' "Every monster should be unique" guideline one step farther into "Every monster has to be based on a dollar store toy".

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2196[/ATTACH]

There are worse guidelines.

Also, at last GaryCon somebody looked over the "bag o' toys" that the Rust Monster and Landshark are from, and noted that many of the rest were a) bipedal and b) proportioned suspiciously like a guy in a rubber suit.

I thought that was extremely interesting, myself.

Brain Mole and Thought Eater have to be up there for the fact of a lot of people throw out psionics.

Masher because of how often it gets missed.

Boggart seems lame to me and the Cat Lord is utterly cringe worthy. Grippli? 700 year old frog-men mashups? ugh.

The Grue Elementals always struck me as unnecessary. Wolf-in-sheep's-clothing? Double ugh.

As annoying as Rust Monsters are to players, I think that in terms of creativity it was really a work of genius. I wouldn't classify it as a 'dumb' monster.

Quote from: jeff37923;1022016Flail Snail

Flail Snails are great.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1023176Flail Snails are great.

When I ran 5e for my group, I had them encounter the flail snail, because earlier the players mocked it.  It proceeded to beat the living snot out of them.  Was amusing.

So, it was a flail snail fail?

I can't lie, I loved many of the oddball monsters from MM2 and the Fiend Folio. Too many DMs fell into "orcs, orcs, and more orcs, but in various sizes" ruts.

I don't know if it was the dumbest, or even as dumb as many mentioned, but the remorhaz never made sense to me. Ice worm, hides in snow, but is really hot and will burn the crap out of you. That being said, I loved them and used them as much as I could.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023266So, it was a flail snail fail?

if their armor didn't protect them then it was flail snail mail fail

Quote from: Big Andy;1023300if their armor didn't protect them then it was flail snail mail fail

And they were so frail because they did not avail themselves of kale or the hefting of bales such that they looked rather pale and the flail snail did nail them to the rail and trim their sail and sent them home in a pail in the mail. Did I miss any [strike]good[/strike]bad ones?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1023313And they were so frail because they did not avail themselves of kale or the hefting of bales such that they looked rather pale and the flail snail did nail them to the rail and trim their sail and sent them home in a pail in the mail. Did I miss any [strike]good[/strike]bad ones?

After all that, their widows would wail...

Quote from: Big Andy;1023315After all that, their widows would wail...

And after that...  I bail.

If they left their women behind and took a boat and then a train and then walked to find the cup of Christ but didn't, it would be a

male flail snail Grail sail rail trail fail.

Man this thread got dumb fast.

I still say it's blink dogs.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1023360If they left their women behind and took a boat and then a train and then walked to find the cup of Christ but didn't, it would be a

male flail snail Grail sail rail trail fail.

friends don't let friends drink and post.

You kind of asked for dumb... right there in the thread title. Once you let it out of the bag, no putting it back.

Quote from: Vile;1023746I still say it's blink dogs.

Yeah, I could go with that one.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1023717Man this thread got dumb fast.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1023750You kind of asked for dumb... right there in the thread title. Once you let it out of the bag, no putting it back.

Yeah, this:).

Quote from: Vile;1023746I still say it's blink dogs.

I read some OSR blog once, many moons ago, where the writer "Re-skinned" blink dogs as "Warp Wolves".

Boom. Lame monster made metal with only one small change.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;1024076I read some OSR blog once, many moons ago, where the writer "Re-skinned" blink dogs as "Warp Wolves".

Boom. Lame monster made metal with only one small change.

Or you could reskin it the other direction. A while back when reading through superhero RPGs, I realized that speedsters are just teleporters with obstacles. So you could figure out their maximum range, change that too a movement rate and boom. Hyper Hound. The great thing is that if you say "Hyper Hound", most everyone will immediately think of that one specific dog. You know the one.

I liked the idea of the blink dogs, reminded me of the Hounds of Tindalos sort of, but the name was bad and they were described kinda lame. I remember playing the pc game Stalker and it had teleporting-ish dogs and I immediately thought of blink dogs. And they are a nasty fight in Stalker so they could have been cooler than they were.

I also never got all the animals in the MM. I know most of them were giant versions of animals, some of which are nifty and staples of the genre (giant eagles, giant crabs, etc) but some were pretty dumb. Did anyone ever have a cool battle with a giant beaver or porcupine?

I don't remember fighting a giant beaver but I do remember being a little scared when I encountered one.;)

In the Middle Ages the beaver was considered a fish because it lived in water.

So in Lent the monks could eat all the beaver they wanted.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024170In the Middle Ages the beaver was considered a fish because it lived in water.

So in Lent the monks could eat all the beaver they wanted.

Also according to the Bible, bats are birds. Not bird enough to be kosher though.

But nobody wants to eat bats.

Dumbest creature in D&D?  Mike Mearls.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024181But nobody wants to eat bats.

And people want to eat oh, I see what is going on.

:D :D

62 going on 13, folks.

Some people don't want to eat beaver either.  Like many fish, it is too salty.

Eating bats will make you batty, but not Roy Batty.  

(in Nethack,  eating a bat stuns the character.  Not a good thing to be, stunned, especially in Nethack.  YASD.

Applying a unicorn horn may rid the character of the stunned condition.  I never really tried to imagine how the unicorn horn might be 'applied.' What happens in the dungeon stays in the dungeon.)

To the question: Strahd the "First Vampyr" from Ravenloft.  The first DM PC.  

Dear DMs,
Please be complete adversarial dicks to your players.
Sincerely,
The Hickmans

Rot Grubs and Ear Seekers as dishonorable mentions.

And Hobgoblins.  They should be half the size of goblins.  That whole 'hob' part of the name. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Franky;1024265Some people don't want to eat beaver either.  Like many fish, it is too salty.

If fish really tasted like beaver, I'd be eating a LOT more fish.

Quote from: Manic Modron;1024231And people want to eat oh, I see what is going on.

I usually let those more gifted at the art do the dirty/naughty humor here, but I can't pretend I didn't laugh out loud the first time I read this  (https://imgur.com/gallery/PIw4lzn)in the paper.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024286If fish really tasted like beaver, I'd be eating a LOT more fish.

Actual beaver (as in the furry beast that eats wood, not the...ohhhhh, sudden realization), anyways, the actual animal beaver is surprisingly tasty. Only ever tasted when with more skilled hunters than I, as opposed to got to make myself. No idea where one would buy the stuff (again, actual beaver, preempting anyone's street-corner joke). There are a couple of recipes from in my Norse ancestor's cook books that I'd love to try some day.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1024336(as in the furry beast that eats wood, not the...ohhhhh, sudden realization)

"Furry beast that eats wood" describes the kind of beaver I'm thinking of, too...

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024170In the Middle Ages the beaver was considered a fish because it lived in water.

So in Lent the monks could eat all the beaver they wanted.

Learn something new everyday!!! Interesting.

... then they had to invent biological taxonomy and ruin everything!!! DAMN YOU SCIENCE!!

Never tried beaver. And I've tried some weird stuff.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1024878Never tried beaver. And I've tried some weird stuff.

Reread that subthread and pretend you're 13 years old again.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024933Reread that subthread and pretend you're 13 years old again.

Anyone who says that with a straight face is less of a genius than they think.

Quote from: Bren;1024948Anyone who says that with a straight face is less of a genius than they think.

Never said I was saying it with a straight face.  I am fully aware Pundy may simply have been ignoring it; it was about as subtle as a dump truck.

I'm ignoring his ignoring.

Two good candidates imo are the Bowler and the Giant Cricket.

For the first imagine the boulder chasing Indiana Jones in the first movie. Except it's a sentient version of the boulder. I think it's possibly a good monster terrible name imo.

The second is harmless and the only reason to kill it is because it makes noise. To me it's always like a waste of ink and art in the First Edition monster manual II.

A lot of this has to with presentation. Good art and good description can redeem the silliest monster.

Case in point, the tatzelwurm of Alpine lore. It looks like a cat/snake hybrid, so Pathfinder decided to ignore that completely when they adapted it. If you look on google or deviantart, you will find plenty of neat-looking tatzelwurms.

Or the fearsome critters of jokes and hoaxes like the axehandle hound, jackalope, snallygaster, wild haggis and drop bear. You can use those to lend an air of Seussian surrealism and humor to a campaign.

On the other hand, monsters that were interesting in folklore became stupid when adapted to monster manuals. The peryton was originally fairly creepy in its weird backstory where they were lost souls cast out of Atlantis as it sank and hated humanity as a result, but D&D ignored all that in favor of making it into yet another bland random encounter. A crow with a deer's head will only ever look silly no matter how fearsome you try to draw it.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1025124A lot of this has to with presentation. Good art and good description can redeem the silliest monster.

Case in point, the tatzelwurm of Alpine lore. It looks like a cat/snake hybrid, so Pathfinder decided to ignore that completely when they adapted it. If you look on google or deviantart, you will find plenty of neat-looking tatzelwurms.

Or the fearsome critters of jokes and hoaxes like the axehandle hound, jackalope, snallygaster, wild haggis and drop bear. You can use those to lend an air of Seussian surrealism and humor to a campaign.

On the other hand, monsters that were interesting in folklore became stupid when adapted to monster manuals. The peryton was originally fairly creepy in its weird backstory where they were lost souls cast out of Atlantis as it sank and hated humanity as a result, but D&D ignored all that in favor of making it into yet another bland random encounter. A crow with a deer's head will only ever look silly no matter how fearsome you try to draw it.

Yes, except the Jack-a-lope is real and actually pretty tasty. I have featured them and the Chupacabra, Giant Swamp Boar, and Montock monster in my campaigns for years as rare creatures that are more prolific in the campaign world than the real world.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2231[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2232[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2233[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1024955Never said I was saying it with a straight face.

I know. I meant Pundy, not you. Though sticking what I said right after quoting you wasn't the best way to make my meaning and reference clear.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1025130Yes, except the Jack-a-lope is real and actually pretty tasty. I have featured them and the Chupacabra, Giant Swamp Boar, and Montock monster in my campaigns for years as rare creatures that are more prolific in the campaign world than the real world.

You could also go the opposite route and increase their numbers to the point that they are considered mundane and jackalope ranches are a thing.

I read an article (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/11356-The-Dumbest-Dungeons-Dragons-Monsters-Ever-And-How-To-Use-Them) about how to redeem some of the silly monsters. The last monster was the strench kow and the advice was never to use it. Someone else (https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/7ninki/art_i_redesigned_the_stench_kow_from_1e_revised/) managed to redeem that one too.

With regard to silly hybrid animals like the owlbear, duckbunny, and spiderhorse, I would just go the Avatar: The Last Airbender route of them being natural to the fantasy world. Since it is fantasy land, there is no reason for it to be limited to real animals. Actual medieval bestiaries believed that hybrid animals were naturally occurring, utterly mundane, and that all animals were basically hybrids originally created by spontaneous generation like morphic fields in Doctor Who. Although I would go the route of depicting their anatomy as contiguous rather than patchwork frankenstein.

I hadn't read the other posts. Man, you guys are NOT helping our case with the rpg.net intellectualoid crowd here.

Pages and pages of dinosaurs, most without illustrations even, the large equivalent of cattle and manatee.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1025692I hadn't read the other posts. Man, you guys are NOT helping our case with the rpg.net intellectualoid crowd here.

I was going to reply per RPG.net... but nah. I just want to know what an "intellectualoid" is?

I have an image of an insect/alien creature with 6 legs and its brain sticking out behind its fly looking eyes. You've been playing too much DCC.

And as a fellow DCC player, I know you have to have some "dumb" creatures to add to this list. I love DCC but they come up with some whack stuff that gives the Fiend Folio a run for its money.

So where's your list?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1025692I hadn't read the other posts. Man, you guys are NOT helping our case with the rpg.net intellectualoid crowd here.

Being able to turn silly on at a whim is a gift.  Being able to turn it off again, as needed, is a skill they lack.  I fail to see why a case should even be attempted. :)

Quote from: RPGPundit;1025692I hadn't read the other posts. Man, you guys are NOT helping our case with the rpg.net intellectualoid crowd here.

Since when do you care what rpg.net thinks of you/us? Haven't you made a lifestyle and identity out of their dislike of you?

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1025722Since when* do you care what rpg.net thinks of you/us? Haven't you made a lifestyle and identity out of their dislike of you?

That sounds like he cares. If he didn't care he'd ignore them.

Quote from: Bren;1025731That sounds like he cares. If he didn't care he'd ignore them.

You are of course right. I guess I should say, "don't you like it when they think poorly of you? Isn't that your thing?"

They have their own mutual antagonism society.

See, I like Rust Monsters. I can almost imagine how they might exist in some kind of believable ecology. They eat metal, so of course you find them underground--that's where the ore is. And after the fight, we gotta go back to town and buy more swords. Fair enough.

"But the thing ate my magic sword!" You poor baby, you lost one of the most common magical items in the game. I guess you'll just have to play through one of the dozens of modules that has three or four +1 Swords lying in a pile at the end of the dungeon, and find yourself another one. Or go back to the tavern where your character hangs out and take your spare +1 Sword out of your sword closet.  

The monster I loathe? The Umpleby. A short sasquatch with treasure sense whose long hair not only gives it a static electricity attack, but can be woven into unbreakable lassoes, which it can use proficiently. Its role in life is to find player characters in a dungeon/abandoned catacomb/whatever, follow them around, and annoy the shit out of them. Everything about the Umpleby is idiotic and screams "The DM is just fucking with us because he is a jerk".

At least the Umpleby serves a purpose, though. His presence in a DM's game is a certain sign that I don't want to play in that DM's stupid fucking game. It's better to find out these things early on so we don't waste so much of our time, after all.

Tekumel has a creature called a 'krukru,' a small critter that will grab something random and run away.

Phil said it was inspired by his experiences with monkeys on the grounds of temples in various parts of Asia.  Little fuckers will climb up you and take anything they can grab.

Semi-related tangent:
Yesterday in gaming, we were discussing silly monster ideas we had when we were younger. Mine included animal cracker and gummi bear monsters, that as your characters defeated, you got to take off the battle mat (or whatever we used at ages 8-18, I don't think we had an actual battle mat) and eat. In the retelling, it occurred to me that gummi bears could also be called 'gelatinous cubs.' Now my question is, did I dream up that 'dad-joke' groaner, or did I actually read it here in the past month or so?

Oh God, that's bad.  I love it.

My personal vote for "Stupidest Monster Ever":

Back in the early to mid 80s, when Cerebus the Aardvark was still funny, before Dave Sim became Dave Sim the (Ha Ha Ha) Mad, somebody sent in a description of his D&D monster race... the... I shit you not... "Aardvark Dudes."

Essentially, Aardvark Dudes were a race of 5' tall Cerebuses.  Cerebi?  Okay, fine.  We all liked Cerebus, even if the name was rancid goat ass.

But what turned them into the World Champion Stupidest Ever is that in every round of combat, there was something like a 20% chance or so that an Aardvark Dude would suddenly shit a random magic item.  Just.. out of nowhere.  Including BIG things; a magic shield, a staff, whatever.

Which puts them at the top of the heap in terms of sheer WTFery.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026051My personal vote for "Stupidest Monster Ever":

Back in the early to mid 80s, when Cerebus the Aardvark was still funny, before Dave Sim became Dave Sim the (Ha Ha Ha) Mad, somebody sent in a description of his D&D monster race... the... I shit you not... "Aardvark Dudes."

Essentially, Aardvark Dudes were a race of 5' tall Cerebuses.  Cerebi?  Okay, fine.  We all liked Cerebus, even if the name was rancid goat ass.

But what turned them into the World Champion Stupidest Ever is that in every round of combat, there was something like a 20% chance or so that an Aardvark Dude would suddenly shit a random magic item.  Just.. out of nowhere.  Including BIG things; a magic shield, a staff, whatever.

Which puts them at the top of the heap in terms of sheer WTFery.

WTFairy sounds like a better name for that.  :D

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1026045Semi-related tangent:
Yesterday in gaming, we were discussing silly monster ideas we had when we were younger. Mine included animal cracker and gummi bear monsters, that as your characters defeated, you got to take off the battle mat (or whatever we used at ages 8-18, I don't think we had an actual battle mat) and eat. In the retelling, it occurred to me that gummi bears could also be called 'gelatinous cubs.' Now my question is, did I dream up that 'dad-joke' groaner, or did I actually read it here in the past month or so?

Not in the past month or so, and maybe not here, but I'm almost sure Gronan has confirmed that;).

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2240[/ATTACH] RPG.net "Intellectualloid"

I used to read the monster manuals just for fun.  And I loved Dragon Magazines "Ecology Of" series!  
I can't think of a single monster that I just hate or is useless- when we gamed every other day in my teenage years, it was kind of a challenge to find a monster we hadn't used yet and find a way to blend them into the campaign.   If I were pressed I would say all the random modrons from 1e MMII were kind of goofy.

I must confess that I put an anthropomorphic race of aardvarks in my Bare Bones (no not that one, I never really published mine) rules.  They were noted for their sophisticated sense of humour.

I didn't mind the anthropomorphic aardvarks.

It was the randomly shitting magic items during combat that triggered my WTF switch.

I'm thinking of using a race of blob based humanoids who don't have bones and are highly pressurized and burst when struck hard enough to pierce their membrane in a GURPS Dungeon Fantasy game.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1026045Semi-related tangent:
Yesterday in gaming, we were discussing silly monster ideas we had when we were younger. Mine included animal cracker and gummi bear monsters, that as your characters defeated, you got to take off the battle mat (or whatever we used at ages 8-18, I don't think we had an actual battle mat) and eat. In the retelling, it occurred to me that gummi bears could also be called 'gelatinous cubs.' Now my question is, did I dream up that 'dad-joke' groaner, or did I actually read it here in the past month or so?

That actually sounds really sweet. I think those would be great encounters inside a witch's gingerbread cottage. Make it a gingerbread castle! And have it travel on huge chicken legs! And the witch looks like the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz!

Sometimes it is loads of fun to give in to your inner child.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1026208Sometimes it is loads of fun to give in to your inner child.

Inner child is great.  Inner teenager is the one that gives me pause.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1026208That actually sounds really sweet. I think those would be great encounters inside a witch's gingerbread cottage. Make it a gingerbread castle! And have it travel on huge chicken legs! And the witch looks like the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz!

Sometimes it is loads of fun to give in to your inner child.

I have discovered that DMing for children has been really rewarding. Back in the early 2000s, I tried DMing for the 8 y.o. daughter of my at-the-time girlfriend. That didn't stay very much like a D&D game so much as just letting her make up stuff. Recently I've been playing Beyond the Wall with my nephew and his friends (13-14) and that has worked better as a game, but we both have lots of other things to do so it is hard to arrange.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026215Inner child is great.  Inner teenager is the one that gives me pause.

Yeah, as I mentioned in the introduce yourself thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?38502-G’day-theRPGsite-tell-me-about-yourselves&p=1024345&viewfull=1#post1024345), I kinda left my teenage things behind when I turned 20. But the inner 8 y.o. with his toy swords and rocket ships and ideas about flash Gordon and Thundarr the Barbarian joining forces to defeat the Wizard of Oz or whatever? That's gold.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1026215Inner child is great.  Inner teenager is the one that gives me pause.

Remind me again, what do teenagers like?

Quote from: Big Andy;1024161Did anyone ever have a cool battle with a giant beaver or porcupine?

The Beaver has been chewed to death upstream, but giant porcupines?

Red Cap Gnomes (evul!) sometimes ride them into battle. Bad ass.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;1022012Nilbog

Nailed it on the first response.

Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1025711I was going to reply per RPG.net... but nah. I just want to know what an "intellectualoid" is?

In Spanish, the word for 'pseudo-intellectual' is "intelectualoide". Which would be something like "intellectualoid" in English. So I decided to introduce that word to the English-speaking world.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;1026015Tekumel has a creature called a 'krukru,' a small critter that will grab something random and run away.

Phil said it was inspired by his experiences with monkeys on the grounds of temples in various parts of Asia.  Little fuckers will climb up you and take anything they can grab.

That's not dumb. That's awesome!

Well, sure, but I was responding the post above about the "umpleby."  The Krukru exists only to annoy PCs, but does so in a way reflecting Phil's real life experience.