TheRPGSite

Which of these non-human opponents does your group find itself using/encountering more often? Why? How do you feel about that?

Note that multiple choice is possible if you really have a tie. Also note that I deliberately didn't put more monster flavors on the poll because I want to see how these compare.

Definitely more on the humanoid side, both savage and decadent. Why? Mainly because I like to use them and I generally run the games.

Orcs and Zombies.  And Skeletons.

When I'm running a game, you can bet there'll be skeletons of various types and power levels. Another guy in our group is a master of Shadows, wights, and other non-corporeal undead (which is why the first money our group ever picks up goes immediately to ghost-touched armor/weapons).

In the recent Pathfinder game I played in the majority of fights were basic humanoids and some random critters, giant spiders and the like. The GM often used random tables from one of the books to generate encounters.

I just started a Runequest 6 game and it will most likely be reliant on humans and animals although I'm open to throwing almost anything at the PCs.

Liches, Ghouls, Ghasts, Shadows, Goblins, Death Knights...

None of the above.

Humans are the most common foes for my PCs.

Quote from: Elfdart;875804None of the above.

Humans are the most common foes for my PCs.

So you never use any of the list, ever?  Wow.

Last time I played, it was TPK to a group of goblins at 1st level.  Them little buggers were too damn tough for us, no way we could have handled anything more formidable.  :p

Freaky mutant and aberrations. Why? Because everything else is played out and mundane at this point.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;875806So you never use any of the list, ever?  Wow.

How do you read "most common foes" and come to that conclusion?

In my last campaign of RuneQuest 6 we were playing Monster Island, and most foes were Swords & Sorcery giant animals, dinosaurs, with some island tribesmen, decadent races in the form of Serpent Men, ghouls, and spirits thrown in.

For the new campaign most foes will be human, though with recurrent Chaos-tainted hybrids (Beastmen), and Cthulhu-esque demons, aberrations, mutants, and decadent marsh dwelling Deep One-style tribes. A lot of the humans are Chaos Mother cultists, so as they progress up the ranks they become less and less human.

We're going to be playing Book of Quests, in a remixed version that puts more emphasis on the political situation in the setting and on the witch-hunting Inquisition of the dominant religion.

What do I vote if the answer is "depends on setting"?

Quote from: AsenRG;875853What do I vote if the answer is "depends on setting"?

Even if you subdivide in that way, there is probably a setting you've played slightly more, hence a type you've used more.

Quote from: everlossFreaky mutant and aberrations. Why? Because everything else is played out and mundane at this point.

Though I tend to agree with you, I'll play devil's advocate based on commentary I got the last time I complained a lot of things in fantasy were cliche: Don't you think the familiarity of the 'mundane' stuff is actually an asset when it comes to players grasping the world, visualizing the scene, and interpreting the cultures?

By that I mean most modern players instantly know how to interpret and interact with 'goblins' while they would struggle and possibly lose engagement when dealing with 'odopi' or something.

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;875856Even if you subdivide in that way, there is probably a setting you've played slightly more, hence a type you've used more.

I change settings and systems for each campaign, with only five settings repeating themselves more often. And they cover your list almost exactly in equal proportions:).

QuoteThough I tend to agree with you, I'll play devil's advocate based on commentary I got the last time I complained a lot of things in fantasy were cliche: Don't you think the familiarity of the 'mundane' stuff is actually an asset when it comes to players grasping the world, visualizing the scene, and interpreting the cultures?

Though it's not a question to me, I find said familiarity to be a liability, as it leads them to assume things that usually aren't true in my settings;).

Savage humanoids, which obviously implies that I am a racist imperialist.

Savage humanoids, animalistic monsters and undead are what I deploy the most as a DM.

I sometimes wish we had more low-level planar foes for mid-level wizards and warlocks to summon and sic on PCs.

Quote from: Ravenswing;875813How do you read "most common foes" and come to that conclusion?

By being dumb.

Quote from: Ravenswing;875813How do you read "most common foes" and come to that conclusion?

The Poll question states:

"Which of these non-human opponents are your group's bread and butter?"

Perhaps I was being too generous.  I was thinking that he never used any sort of monster simply because he didn't think they fit his games.  Which to me is impressive.

But I was also wonder that if he had a slightly less common set of 'monsters' he might have used, which of the poll's list did he have.  Instead, he's devolved into pejoratives.  And that eliminates the chance to have an interesting discussion.  Oh well.

I put both Savage and Decadent humanoids, though I don't really recognize those categories. After humans, the most common opponents would be non-human humanoids, but there are no Drow, and my orcs and goblins are usually closer to civilized than savage or decadent per se.

I prefer a human-centered world, and I prefer using humans as enemies for the PCs, since in most cases there's not that much difference between an orc and a man-at-arms. A DM could swap out one with the other in a typical adventure and no one would notice. This also applies to "decadent" humanoids, which can also be swapped out for humans without any great difficulty.

It's not that I never use them, but I'd rather keep them exotic and that means uncommon or rare.

The other monsters are of the sort that they are best used sparingly and thus wouldn't really qualify as "bread and butter" monsters.

I'm surprised at the low result for demons/devils and associated critters. I had formed the impression that many campaigns used their variety across levels as a linchpin.

Quote from: Elfdart;876009I prefer a human-centered world, and I prefer using humans as enemies for the PCs, since in most cases there's not that much difference between an orc and a man-at-arms. A DM could swap out one with the other in a typical adventure and no one would notice. This also applies to "decadent" humanoids, which can also be swapped out for humans without any great difficulty.

Yeah, humans make the majority of opponents in my games as well, that's exactly why everything else is so equally represented:D!

all of the above in a mixture

I like using goblins. I tend to run them as bat shit crazy little savages.

I have used undead fairly often, but not so often everyone just expects it.

I've gotten good use out of old standbys like orcs and goblins, but I don't actually use them that often.

Slimes, vermin, and stuff like that show up not infrequently in my tabletop games.

Totally depends on the campaign.