TheRPGSite

Something that came up in the Pathfinder drow thread (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/pathfinder-ditches-the-drow/) was about how elves and dwarves are extremely varied in mythology. And I thought it would make an interesting topic in its own right.

Quote from: ForgottenF on June 04, 2023, 07:59:02 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on June 04, 2023, 07:22:24 PM
On any event there are a lot of these inconsistencies of usage that make some of these terms hard to pin down, with different places using different words to refer to similar creatures, or the same word to refer to different ones. And not just "elf/alfar", but pretty much the entire vocabulary concerning "faeries" in general. Plus jinn, yokai, angels and demons are similar to "faeries/fey" as well, and probably refer the same overall category of "otherworldly (mostly) humanoid creatures", but applied to different cultures.

Yeah, I don't think it would be wholly unreasonable to refer to Nyads and Dryads as "Greek Elves", the same way that some  might refer to Selkies or the Tuatha Dé Danann as "Celtic Elves".

Agreed - and even within a single mythology, elves and dwarves vary extremely widely.

D&D categorizes monsters into identical stat blocks, which influences this - whereas some other games treat monsters differently. Original RuneQuest would have random stats and traits for monsters, for example - while most of early D&D had only random hit points for monsters. Other systems treat monsters like NPCs - they can often be unique individuals rather than standardized blocks.

Further, most D&D worlds treat creature types like genetic species - which is influenced by having standardized stat blocks but also by scientific thinking. i.e. A clan of giants in a D&D world will all have the same rough height and features. Whereas in mythology, one giant might be the size of a mountain, while his brother is the size of a house but can turn invisible.

This isn't just humanoid, either. In European folklore, dragons are typically each unique and different rather than falling into categorized strains like red/blue/black/etc.

---

There are some good reasons to standardize monsters. It's easier for GM bookkeeping, tracking challenge difficulty, and helps players make informed tactical decisions. On the other hand, I also feel like its missing out on something for monsters to be so identical.

How often and under what circumstances do other posters vary up their monsters?

I wrote a book on a similar subject. This is from Teratogenicon:

Types, species, clades, families,
individuals...

As you can see, "type" is not synonymous with species.
It is up to you to decide if a monster is unique, part of a
species of similar monsters, or something else entirely. You
can use the tables to distinguish a group of goblins from
other goblins – maybe a whole tribe has extra eyes because
their ancestors worshipped the Spider-god – or to create
a unique kind of monster that has no equal in your world.
You can also use the tables to create individuals that are
part of a larger group – there are millions goblins in the
world, but only one that spits fire, due to a mutation or
curse.
Likewise, you can do the same with all kinds of popular
monsters – maybe your world has a single legendary dragon,
or maybe it has armies of dragons clashing in the sky.
Generally, unique monsters should be powerful and
memorable, while weak monsters are somewhat similar to
one another. Nobody cares if a random goblin has no ears,
unless the creature is important for some other reason.
---

To elaborate a little bit, I think in terms of monster types, power and circumstance.

Type - dragons should always have personalities and unique traits, undead, oozes and golems not so much.

Power - if a creature is too powerful, it should often have personalities and unique traits - if it has a personality. A lich should be unique, a powerful golem or elemental might not.

Circumstances - can make a lowly NPC important. A recurring creature might deserve some detail.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/317448/Teratogenicon?src=hottest_filtered

Well, lets see...

Having a common language is a good thing for the hobby, because our brains are the CPUs running the simulation, so OOP works best to have less to change the software to be able to run/play a different game.

Meaning I disagree that having standarized monsters is a bad thing, of course neither is having 100% original ones, if that's even possible:

Giants, so you have one that's the size of a house (wouldn't that be an Ogre?) Automatons, aren't those just zombies?

Of course some flavor and mechanics have been changed but at the end of the day there's nothing new under the sun.

I read a monster manual entry, as describing the average individual.  There will be some deviation from the norm.  Exceptional individuals may, and probably do, exist.  Below par individuals may, and probably do, exist.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 12:57:25 PM
There are some good reasons to standardize monsters. It's easier for GM bookkeeping, tracking challenge difficulty, and helps players make informed tactical decisions. On the other hand, I also feel like its missing out on something for monsters to be so identical.

How often and under what circumstances do other posters vary up their monsters?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 01:30:37 PM
Meaning I disagree that having standarized monsters is a bad thing, of course neither is having 100% original ones, if that's even possible

I didn't say that having standardized monsters is a bad thing. I was explicit about that above. I asked about how often and under what circumstances does one vary them.

Even in a game with only human opponents, a GM will usually use some standardization. i.e. Thugs #1 to #7 all use the same stats.

It would be possible, though, to treat monsters more like humans. i.e. Have a bunch of different stat blocks for the same type of monster just like there are different stat blocks for Spy, Knight, Guard, Cultist, etc.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 12:57:25 PM
How often and under what circumstances do other posters vary up their monsters?

All the time. The bestiary is just a guide. Experienced players know many/most of the standard monsters already. Tweaking or inventing monsters keeps things fresh. Is this not just another part of world building?

"GM bookkeeping" - If ease of bookkeeping is a driving factor in a game of imagination, the GM needs to take a break.

"Tracking challenge difficulty" - Fuck that, the PCs can always try to flee, parlay, or think laterally.

"Helps players make informed tactical decision" - Aka metagaming. Aw, the poo widdle players don't know the monster's special abilities ahead of time.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 12:57:25 PM
There are some good reasons to standardize monsters. It's easier for GM bookkeeping, tracking challenge difficulty, and helps players make informed tactical decisions. On the other hand, I also feel like its missing out on something for monsters to be so identical.

How often and under what circumstances do other posters vary up their monsters?

I've always used "Monster Manuals" and Statblocks as a baseline for my monsters, creatures and NPCs. Sometimes I just throw in the bog standard goblins for my players, other times I have groups of veteran Skirmish Goblins who are apart of a slaver kingdom of goblins. Sometimes there's a goblin who's bigger then all the other goblins due to mutations and treated as a beast of burden, so I use the ogre stat block and just remove the regeneration.

For me, it's about having interesting situations and when it comes to players making informed decisions. If said decisions requires them knowing the statblocks, that's meta gaming. As for GM book keeping, it's honestly not much effort to on the fly give a random orc a staff of fireballs and a little more HP.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 02:36:20 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 12:57:25 PM
There are some good reasons to standardize monsters. It's easier for GM bookkeeping, tracking challenge difficulty, and helps players make informed tactical decisions. On the other hand, I also feel like its missing out on something for monsters to be so identical.

How often and under what circumstances do other posters vary up their monsters?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 01:30:37 PM
Meaning I disagree that having standarized monsters is a bad thing, of course neither is having 100% original ones, if that's even possible

I didn't say that having standardized monsters is a bad thing. I was explicit about that above. I asked about how often and under what circumstances does one vary them.

Even in a game with only human opponents, a GM will usually use some standardization. i.e. Thugs #1 to #7 all use the same stats.

It would be possible, though, to treat monsters more like humans. i.e. Have a bunch of different stat blocks for the same type of monster just like there are different stat blocks for Spy, Knight, Guard, Cultist, etc.

Isn't that already done (Even in D&D/OSR)? I mean you have the Ogres and then you have the Oni/Ogre Mage, same is true for Orcs and other monsters. As for Dragons aren't there already different types? and the standard stat block isn't just the average individual of that type of monster? Dragons even deviate in alignment.

What you seem to be talking about is not having ANY common stats among species/races/whatever; to completely get rid of ANY commonality and to make them all different.

Now, I might be reading stuff that's not there.

I do feel the standardization loses much of the magic. We need more random generation tables to simulate the variability of myth and folklore. When designing, we need to think of monsters as archetypes and templates rather than highly specific species.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 03:30:12 PM
Isn't that already done (Even in D&D/OSR)? I mean you have the Ogres and then you have the Oni/Ogre Mage, same is true for Orcs and other monsters. As for Dragons aren't there already different types? and the standard stat block isn't just the average individual of that type of monster? Dragons even deviate in alignment.

What you seem to be talking about is not having ANY common stats among species/races/whatever; to completely get rid of ANY commonality and to make them all different.

Now, I might be reading stuff that's not there.

I think you've over-reading. I'm not talking about a single extreme - just about the topic in general. How much and how far to vary things.

I'd agree that dragons varying by size and age is an example of this in D&D. Another example is how in the original Module G1, young hill giants use the ogre stat block, while the hill giant chief uses the frost giant stat block. But obviously, the G1 case is stretching the model to do so.

Red dragon vs. blue dragon or ogre vs ogre magi are portrayed as different breeds. i.e. They're different monsters, so it's not the same thing. An ogre mage isn't an individual ogre who has learned magic.

---

I do think something missed in games that standardize a lot is how in myth, individual creatures varied a lot. In Greek myth, the Hydra wasn't a species - it was a unique creature. In France, the Shaggy Beast of La Ferté-Bernard was a dragon with specific characteristics, not a species of hairy dragon. The variations especially for things like fae creatures or dragons go much further than small/medium/large or young/old.

For example, in original RuneQuest, monsters had die rolls for their stats -- and they even often had randomized abilities. Broos would roll for random mutations, for example. D&D has had less variation for its monster types, with dragons and a few others as the exceptions.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 04:38:28 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 03:30:12 PM
Isn't that already done (Even in D&D/OSR)? I mean you have the Ogres and then you have the Oni/Ogre Mage, same is true for Orcs and other monsters. As for Dragons aren't there already different types? and the standard stat block isn't just the average individual of that type of monster? Dragons even deviate in alignment.

What you seem to be talking about is not having ANY common stats among species/races/whatever; to completely get rid of ANY commonality and to make them all different.

Now, I might be reading stuff that's not there.

I think you've over-reading. I'm not talking about a single extreme - just about the topic in general. How much and how far to vary things.

I'd agree that dragons varying by size and age is an example of this in D&D. Another example is how in the original Module G1, young hill giants use the ogre stat block, while the hill giant chief uses the frost giant stat block. But obviously, the G1 case is stretching the model to do so.

Red dragon vs. blue dragon or ogre vs ogre magi are portrayed as different breeds. i.e. They're different monsters, so it's not the same thing. An ogre mage isn't an individual ogre who has learned magic.

---

I do think something missed in games that standardize a lot is how in myth, individual creatures varied a lot. In Greek myth, the Hydra wasn't a species - it was a unique creature. In France, the Shaggy Beast of La Ferté-Bernard was a dragon with specific characteristics, not a species of hairy dragon. The variations especially for things like fae creatures or dragons go much further than small/medium/large or young/old.

For example, in original RuneQuest, monsters had die rolls for their stats -- and they even often had randomized abilities. Broos would roll for random mutations, for example. D&D has had less variation for its monster types, with dragons and a few others as the exceptions.

Isn't that exactly what other games do according to the following paragraphs of your post?

You want it both ways, to have the Hydra as a singular individual and at the same time to have the Ogres as a race, but not really because they roll for everything.

Let's focus on intelligent monsters (because I think I know you a bit) for a moment and let's call them species (even if in Pseudo medieval settings the name makes no fucking sense):

Are all Ogres exactly the same? No, but they are alike enough as to be recognized as a species. As per the MM Ogre, Oni & Merrow are enough alike as to be considered of the same kin. http://dedpihto.narod.ru/games/Monsters1/MM00229.htm (http://dedpihto.narod.ru/games/Monsters1/MM00229.htm) (Something I disagreee with since Ogre Mage/Oni are clearly trying to model a Japanese monster and doing a shitty job at it.

Even then and there you already had some Ogres with classes, which would solve the sameness issue you seem to have.

Now let's talk about IRL animals... There are about 10,000 species of birds, yet they all are birds, so what's the problem with green, red, bronze, etc Dragons?

Since Lions and Tigers can produce offspring (almost 100% of the time infertile) it seems reasonable to think that other species of Tiger can interbreed among themselves and maybe even produce fertile offspring. So, what's the problem with having Ogre, Ogre Mage and Marrow as the ecological diversity you seem to want?

As for the "but in mythology" thing... Well yes and no, this is only true of SOME mythological monsters not all, usually the more powerful ones, like the Hydra, Cerberus, etc. but even the greeks had Centaurs (which includes Cyprian and Lamian Centaurs), Cyclops, Griffin (at least 3), Hippocampus, Mermaids/Sirens, the Nereids (50 of them), among others.

I remember reading a blog years ago where the author explained that all hydras had actually grown from the severed heads of the original immortal Hydra. They don't reproduce but mature from severed heads that escape. Each generation is smaller than the last until they cannot produce further generations. (The smallest generation were palm-sized and used by assassins.)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 06, 2023, 04:37:53 PM
I do feel the standardization loses much of the magic. We need more random generation tables to simulate the variability of myth and folklore. When designing, we need to think of monsters as archetypes and templates rather than highly specific species.

Thanks, BoxCrayonTales. I agree. Having random generation tables is even in line with a lot of old-school practice. Are there old-school games where some monsters have randomized abilities like RQ Broo?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 05:07:08 PM
Now let's talk about IRL animals... There are about 10,000 species of birds, yet they all are birds, so what's the problem with green, red, bronze, etc Dragons?

Since Lions and Tigers can produce offspring (almost 100% of the time infertile) it seems reasonable to think that other species of Tiger can interbreed among themselves and maybe even produce fertile offspring. So, what's the problem with having Ogre, Ogre Mage and Marrow as the ecological diversity you seem to want?

It's not that I object to having dragons work exactly like real-life genetic science. That can be fun. It's that it's not the only way to do monsters.

In my current campaign, I have the standard dragon types and that's fine. But on my next campaign, I might have each dragon roll 1d10 on the Breath Weapon Type table. So individual dragons would be different from each other. Going further, I might have dragons roll on the Dragon Mobility table to see if they have wings and how many limbs they have, and roll on the Dragon Magic table to see if they have other special abilities.

For ogres, it's fine to have three subspecies as ogre types. But in a new world, I might decide that ogres are roughly as varied as humans. So I might have different stat blocks for Ogre Grunt, Ogre Shaman, Ogre Scout, Ogre Berserker, and Ogre Champion - to use as templates for typical ogre NPCs. But for specific ogres I might stat up differently, like an ogre chieftan Kagrak who has a combination of shaman-like abilities and barbarian-like abilities.

I don't know of old school games with lot of monster generators. I've tried making my own tables for individual archetypes like cockatrices/basilisks and lamias/manticores/sphinxes, but there's a lot of monsters.

I did find two for dragons tho:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/5k7g67/random_dragon_generator/
http://oldguardgamingaccoutrements.blogspot.com/2009/10/unexpurgated-dragon-generator.html

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:45:53 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 06, 2023, 04:37:53 PM
I do feel the standardization loses much of the magic. We need more random generation tables to simulate the variability of myth and folklore. When designing, we need to think of monsters as archetypes and templates rather than highly specific species.

Thanks, BoxCrayonTales. I agree. Having random generation tables is even in line with a lot of old-school practice. Are there old-school games where some monsters have randomized abilities like RQ Broo?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 05:07:08 PM
Now let's talk about IRL animals... There are about 10,000 species of birds, yet they all are birds, so what's the problem with green, red, bronze, etc Dragons?

Since Lions and Tigers can produce offspring (almost 100% of the time infertile) it seems reasonable to think that other species of Tiger can interbreed among themselves and maybe even produce fertile offspring. So, what's the problem with having Ogre, Ogre Mage and Marrow as the ecological diversity you seem to want?

It's not that I object to having dragons work exactly like real-life genetic science. That can be fun. It's that it's not the only way to do monsters.

In my current campaign, I have the standard dragon types and that's fine. But on my next campaign, I might have each dragon roll 1d10 on the Breath Weapon Type table. So individual dragons would be different from each other. Going further, I might have dragons roll on the Dragon Mobility table to see if they have wings and how many limbs they have, and roll on the Dragon Magic table to see if they have other special abilities.

For ogres, it's fine to have three subspecies as ogre types. But in a new world, I might decide that ogres are roughly as varied as humans. So I might have different stat blocks for Ogre Grunt, Ogre Shaman, Ogre Scout, Ogre Berserker, and Ogre Champion - to use as templates for typical ogre NPCs. But for specific ogres I might stat up differently, like an ogre chieftan Kagrak who has a combination of shaman-like abilities and barbarian-like abilities.

That's fine, having hundreds of grunts a few scouts a shaman or two a berserker and a champion ads spice to the battle.

There are at least 4 random generators for monsters that I know off:

The Elegant random monster generator
The Esoteric random monster generator
Life form generator (IIRC it's for SWN)
and the theratinomicom (or whatever the one by our friend Eric Diaz is called)
Plus there was one for Cthulhu like mythos/monsters/creatures.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 04:38:28 PM

I do think something missed in games that standardize a lot is how in myth, individual creatures varied a lot. In Greek myth, the Hydra wasn't a species - it was a unique creature. In France, the Shaggy Beast of La Ferté-Bernard was a dragon with specific characteristics, not a species of hairy dragon. The variations especially for things like fae creatures or dragons go much further than small/medium/large or young/old.

For example, in original RuneQuest, monsters had die rolls for their stats -- and they even often had randomized abilities. Broos would roll for random mutations, for example. D&D has had less variation for its monster types, with dragons and a few others as the exceptions.

Everything the same is boring.  Everything is different is also boring, only in a slightly less obvious way.  In particular, every monster you meet is different removes a huge chunk of the fun of playing. 

What I do in a typical D&D-style game using a bestiary is go through it before the campaign starts.  I pick around 10-15 monsters that are "typical" as a baseline. Most people in the world have heard of them, and quite a few have seen them, if only a dead one that some adventurers killed.  Then I vary those monsters within a fairly narrow range of abilities.  Or sometimes a wider range across multiple clans/tribes/cultures/whatever.  This could be a simple as having different goblin tribes focus on different weapons and environments, though usually I'll have some with more serious changes.

Then I take 2 to 4 other monsters and deliberately put a spin on them.  Once the spin is applied, they function much like the preceding group.  Only players don't know the spin when the campaign starts, though they can ask learned people they meet and learn some of it by experience.

Then I mix in a few things that will get used sparingly--rare creatures, limited terrain, etc.  This maybe doubles the number of monsters so far.  All bets are off on these things.   They could be straight out of the manual.  They could be twisted all out of recognition.  They could just be using the stat block as an approximation, with folklore an different skin tacked on for something that appears and acts very different.

I may end up using other creatures from the books, but they'll either be one-offs or they'll be stat blocks robbed and reskinned into one of the more common options above.  Instead of kobolds and goblins and redcaps and boggarts, I'll have all those thrown into a pot and blended into one named thing with some variation.  I might use "goblin" for what those are called in the setting, but they probably don't exactly fit the bestiary version.

Now, I do this typically for a setting that is spun up for one campaign that will run 18 to 36 months, and perhaps have a sequel campaign.  If I have a sequel, I'll probably add a few creatures at that time.  The idea is that the players can explore the setting and learn about the creatures as they are in that setting--not just port assumptions wholesale from a completely different game.  In that environment, I don't need the novelty of a continuous stream of new creatures.  It also leaves me the option of having a classical unique monster that can be allowed to be killed.

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:45:53 PM

In my current campaign, I have the standard dragon types and that's fine. But on my next campaign, I might have each dragon roll 1d10 on the Breath Weapon Type table. So individual dragons would be different from each other. Going further, I might have dragons roll on the Dragon Mobility table to see if they have wings and how many limbs they have, and roll on the Dragon Magic table to see if they have other special abilities.

I do something similar with my dragons.  Random breath weapon(s) and they get more as they age, so an ancient wyrm may have 3 different breath weapon types to use. 

Keeps the party on their toes as they can't prepare for a known dragon type.

Well D&D did do variations on Monsters due to culture in its TSR days, too. Variations on critters really depended on assumed setting assumptions, and that was a huge part of the romance I have with 1e & 2e settings. The standardization started more robustly under WotC, and was one of the reasons I bounced off of d20 Glut & 3e/3.5/PF repeatedly. It feels... homogenized.

Now, standards are useful in being approachable. Talislanta is a great example of just a little too alien to be relatable that it ends up high concept to a broad draft of players. Eventually all that flora and fauna trying to kill you start to get re-labeled by players into relatable analogs, just so they can stay in the game.

There's a happy balance one has to discover for one's table, for one's audience. But I do absolutely love thematic variations where setting comes first. Yet my goofy interests must be tempered with my players' capability and interest.  ;D

I do a little bit of this - my "orcs" are actually a broad group of unusual creatures with their own sort of subtypes. Regardless of subtypes though, they're all sort of referenced in short by most NPCs as "orcs". Some people might know goblins are the small sort of orc, but that doesn't say a lot. Some of them are horrible pig men. Others are weird half bird half-stickbug creatures. You can sort of imagine the variety of weird and grotesque demons or gargoyles you see sketched in older books or manuscripts to think of the weird variety of monsters. So there are broad sub-categories like goblin, and variations within that, but there is also a sort of internal logic to how they organize. Basically certain environments lead to more predominant types of orcs spawning. Nevertheless you'll get a mixture of weird orc types in virtually any orc den. This allows a lot of variety in any space that contains these sorts of creatures. All "goblin" really tells a PC is that they're smaller, tend to gather in larger numbers, and tend to be fairly cowardly.

This provides a lot of variety in itself. I also will change creatures so they have a variety of levels. Some are elite-type characters who are akin to characters with class-style abilities. Beyond that, I also create lots of varieties of stat blocks to represent the different morphologies or societal roles or whatever (goblin shamans, pig men, stick bugs, whatever). They'll have their own attributes and abilities and stuff like HP. During prep or at the table during play though, all creatures of a certain kind have the same stats. If you're looking at 2 stick bug orcs then they have the same stat block. I want my hordes to be manageable first and foremost.

One other example are my variety of zombies. I have quite a lot of different types, but they don't represent different breeds or strains or anything like that. They represent a variety of reanimated dead that you'll stumble across. The different names and abilities and stats and stuff are mostly for my side of the screen and to provide novelty. They're all just "zombies", but some will shamble, some will run around, some will keep moving unless you remove the head, whatever seems cool. Certain styles of undead naturally begin to drift into their own category, so all "Zombie" communicates to a PC is that it's a reanimated corpse, with flesh on the bone, that's generally harder to kill than it was in life.

I find that even if a monster book describes a creature as part of a group, if it's only going to come up once in the campaign I may well treat it as unique. A high CR Kobold Press creature like the Stuhac (CR 13) comes to mind as a cool unique encounter.

I found this old school generator for chimeras: https://landofnod.blog/2011/07/06/chim-chimera-cheree/

I make custom monsters for practically every encounter because I find the act of brainstorming and designing enemies to be fun, and if you need enough encounters to warrant using stat-blocks in a book...chances are you're giving the players too many encounters.

I also tend towards Chimerism with monster design rather than giving them too close to the book. I am known to do crazy things like fuse dragons and displacer beasts.

I don't even understand the premise of this discussion.  It seems definitional or a categorizing issue to me.

At what point do individual monsters deviate from the norm?  Well, on one level, every monster is unique.  On another, every one of them is a monster.  How different are people?  On one hand, we all have a unique combination of genes (except monozygotic twins) and a unique expression of them (even monozygotic twins).  Yet every human being has 99.9% identical genes.  And there's only about a 4% difference between us and chimps.  So we're all unique... and mostly the same.

What matters is what matters.  In an adventure where the characters are heroes expected to carve through hordes of goblins, a DM would be foolish to create a 5 page backstory for every goblin.  But the dragon at the end of the adventure might deserve a long backstory, with history and motivations.  So the question isn't whether monsters should be standardized, but the extent to which any monsters' purpose will make variation an important part of play.  Rolling separate hit points for twenty kobolds is probably enough (and maybe not even that, depending on whether the characters average enough damage per swing to kill any kobold despite the variation).  Giving different breath weapons to the main bad guy dragon is possibly not even enough (spell selection, lair actions, minions, etc. all might be worth a look).

So this discussion is moot, without the context of the role the creature plays in the game.  In a nuclear hellscape, after the atomic apocalypse, it might be worth it to roll the individual powers or attributes of the mutants the players encounter, as it will also help establish the setting and its conceits.  But should every kobold have a different weapon, talent, and set of abilities?  Especially when they are expected to drop in one hit?

There is a utility to groups of similar monsters, just as there is a utility to unique monsters.  Some of the advantages of standardization are:

• Lowering DM prep time for a particular encounter (not all encounters are equal)
• Rewarding player knowledge (the first time a troll regenerates, it's a wild moment for the players.  Then they get rewarded for their engagement by being able to use fire effectively the next time.  Then they get thrown for a loop when the next regenerating monster heals faster due to fire...
• Setting a coherent background for the world (if orcs are about capturing slaves, kobolds are about gathering sacrifices for a dragon, and goblins are about bullying or stealing, you have created a cohesive picture for the players.  They can use this knowledge to interact with the world, increasing immersion)

Unique monsters have the advantages of:

• Surprising the players (and preventing the players from winning with preparation, which can lead to boredom)
• Adding the sense of importance to an encounter (if this kobold is twice the size, carries a battleaxe, and taunts you in fluent Common, then you know something special is happening)
• Differentiating locations and making the world seem larger (if this particular orc tribe all uses bows, it creates a sense of space or distance that just counting off miles may not)

These lists are neither comprehensive or exclusive.  But it does show that how detailed you make your monsters should usually be related to their purpose, and not just some generic principle.

In fact, this is usually related to the biggest failings of later D&D versions.  Honestly, no D&D bestiary comes close to the original Monster Manual and Fiend Folio when it comes to giving DMs tools to treat monsters as groups or as individuals.  I know some folks who deride the naturalistic tone of the MM, but it gives enough background to either make the monster a unique entity or to use them as larger groups of antagonists.  When you look at 3e (and Pathfinder), where orc is a "template" and your orc can have class templates applied as well, you get a prep nightmare (one reason I think Paizo's adventure paths became so popular).  5e's monsters (as in the MM) are not much more than bags of hit points.  So neither really hits the sweet spot where a monster can be quickly made unique (the expectation in 3.5 and PF is that the DM is bound by the same rules in making monsters as the players are in making characters) or can be run as mooks with little effort.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 07:58:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:45:53 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on June 06, 2023, 04:37:53 PM
I do feel the standardization loses much of the magic. We need more random generation tables to simulate the variability of myth and folklore. When designing, we need to think of monsters as archetypes and templates rather than highly specific species.

Thanks, BoxCrayonTales. I agree. Having random generation tables is even in line with a lot of old-school practice. Are there old-school games where some monsters have randomized abilities like RQ Broo?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 05:07:08 PM
Now let's talk about IRL animals... There are about 10,000 species of birds, yet they all are birds, so what's the problem with green, red, bronze, etc Dragons?

Since Lions and Tigers can produce offspring (almost 100% of the time infertile) it seems reasonable to think that other species of Tiger can interbreed among themselves and maybe even produce fertile offspring. So, what's the problem with having Ogre, Ogre Mage and Marrow as the ecological diversity you seem to want?

It's not that I object to having dragons work exactly like real-life genetic science. That can be fun. It's that it's not the only way to do monsters.

In my current campaign, I have the standard dragon types and that's fine. But on my next campaign, I might have each dragon roll 1d10 on the Breath Weapon Type table. So individual dragons would be different from each other. Going further, I might have dragons roll on the Dragon Mobility table to see if they have wings and how many limbs they have, and roll on the Dragon Magic table to see if they have other special abilities.

For ogres, it's fine to have three subspecies as ogre types. But in a new world, I might decide that ogres are roughly as varied as humans. So I might have different stat blocks for Ogre Grunt, Ogre Shaman, Ogre Scout, Ogre Berserker, and Ogre Champion - to use as templates for typical ogre NPCs. But for specific ogres I might stat up differently, like an ogre chieftan Kagrak who has a combination of shaman-like abilities and barbarian-like abilities.

That's fine, having hundreds of grunts a few scouts a shaman or two a berserker and a champion ads spice to the battle.

There are at least 4 random generators for monsters that I know off:

The Elegant random monster generator
The Esoteric random monster generator
Life form generator (IIRC it's for SWN)
and the theratinomicom (or whatever the one by our friend Eric Diaz is called)
Plus there was one for Cthulhu like mythos/monsters/creatures.

Teratogenicon my friend!  ;D

But my second favorite - not mentioned here - is certainly the Monster Alphabet (DCC). Awesome stuff!

(There is a Cthulhu Alphabet too, good but not only about monsters.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 07:58:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:45:53 PM
It's not that I object to having dragons work exactly like real-life genetic science. That can be fun. It's that it's not the only way to do monsters.

In my current campaign, I have the standard dragon types and that's fine. But on my next campaign, I might have each dragon roll 1d10 on the Breath Weapon Type table. So individual dragons would be different from each other. Going further, I might have dragons roll on the Dragon Mobility table to see if they have wings and how many limbs they have, and roll on the Dragon Magic table to see if they have other special abilities.

For ogres, it's fine to have three subspecies as ogre types. But in a new world, I might decide that ogres are roughly as varied as humans. So I might have different stat blocks for Ogre Grunt, Ogre Shaman, Ogre Scout, Ogre Berserker, and Ogre Champion - to use as templates for typical ogre NPCs. But for specific ogres I might stat up differently, like an ogre chieftan Kagrak who has a combination of shaman-like abilities and barbarian-like abilities.

That's fine, having hundreds of grunts a few scouts a shaman or two a berserker and a champion ads spice to the battle.

There are at least 4 random generators for monsters that I know off:

The Elegant random monster generator
The Esoteric random monster generator
Life form generator (IIRC it's for SWN)
and the theratinomicom (or whatever the one by our friend Eric Diaz is called)
Plus there was one for Cthulhu like mythos/monsters/creatures.

Thanks. Looking up the ones for fantasy, here are the links I got:

Elegant Fantasy Creature Generator
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/263673/Elegant-Fantasy-Creature-Generator

Random Esoteric Creature Generator
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/58916/Random-Esoteric-Creature-Generator-for-Classic-Fantasy-RolePlaying-Games-and-their-Modern-Simulacra

Teratogenicon
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/317448/Teratogenicon


Completely random monsters is a third option a bit different from either of my examples. So I might break down some potential options:

(1) Have a completely random monster - either as a type (i.e. a random new species of monster) or a random unique individual.

(2) Have random abilities or features within a single stat block. I'm thinking of original RuneQuest which has random ability scores for monsters as well as random hit points. Plus some chaos creatures would roll on a table of random Chaos Features.

This was normal in RuneQuest, but isn't common in D&D. It seems not worth the bookkeeping for minor enemies, but potentially useful to vary up big enemies.

(3) Have multiple stat blocks for a monster even within the same species/subspecies. In D&D, this is done for dragons and a few humanoids. A small young blue dragon is different than a large ancient blue dragon; and drow assassin is different than drow mage. Most monster species don't get this treatment, though.

This depends on what the campaign focus is. If the PCs keep meeting different monster types with each encounter, then it doesn't make sense to have many stat blocks for one species. But if they have a series of adventures where they keep fighting ogres, then it makes sense to have more detailed ogres.

I feel like this sometimes the logic goes the other way, though. i.e. There are no series of adventures fighting ogres, because ogres aren't varied enough.

(4) Have a non-random specific stat block for an individual, like a unique NPC.

One issue regarding folklore and accounts of legendary creatures is that a lot of these people lived widely apart from each other (geographically and sometimes temporarily), with regional language differences, even when they belonged to the same culture (which wasn't even always the case), and limited ways of corroborating each other's stories, if at all. Add to that the nature of the types of beings being discussed--the fact that they probably don't even exist, or might dwell within a different plane of existence or frequency if they do, or arise out of a common type as hallucinogenic experience--and it becomes even trickier to pin down a fixed definition of what X or Y legendary creature even is. So there's bound to be a lot of inconsistences when it comes to this type of accounts, even if we assume that these creatures are real, which there's no way to verify that.

But when we're dealing with representing these types of creatures in play, we tend to rely on more consistent details on what X or Y creature is and what their basic capabilities are. And we tend to operate under the assumption that within the game world, these creatures definitely exist and belong to a specific class of being--even if they're all part of a broader category of "fey/fairies/jinn" or whatever, each individual specific type is a discrete class of being. And while culture/time period X may have used the word "Elf" to refer to a very different type of creature than culture/time period Y, that's not necessarily the case when we're invoking them in the game. So I lean towards standardization of specific types of legendary/mythological/whatever creatures.

That being said, even within that realm of "standardization" I always allow a lot of variability in terms of actual stat blocks, and apply that standardization only to determine common characteristics, such as general appearance, darkvision, resistance to certain types of effects, etc. But if we're dealing with an intelligent humanoid creature, for example, I always add class levels to them and treat the type of creature they are like a "race" for game purposes. I may also allow setting variations for what abilities each of these "races" have as well, and there might be "color coded" (for lack of a better term) variants of the same "race", like "Elves" of different environments (jungle, forest, desert, etc.) and the like.

Quote from: Fheredin on June 07, 2023, 08:15:59 AM
I make custom monsters for practically every encounter because I find the act of brainstorming and designing enemies to be fun, and if you need enough encounters to warrant using stat-blocks in a book...chances are you're giving the players too many encounters.

If you need unique creatures for every encounter, you aren't playing the individual creatures as well as you could ... chances are the number of encounters you have is not the problem.

Quote from: jhkim on June 07, 2023, 01:58:51 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 07:58:34 PM

Quote from: jhkim on June 06, 2023, 06:45:53 PM
It's not that I object to having dragons work exactly like real-life genetic science. That can be fun. It's that it's not the only way to do monsters.

In my current campaign, I have the standard dragon types and that's fine. But on my next campaign, I might have each dragon roll 1d10 on the Breath Weapon Type table. So individual dragons would be different from each other. Going further, I might have dragons roll on the Dragon Mobility table to see if they have wings and how many limbs they have, and roll on the Dragon Magic table to see if they have other special abilities.

For ogres, it's fine to have three subspecies as ogre types. But in a new world, I might decide that ogres are roughly as varied as humans. So I might have different stat blocks for Ogre Grunt, Ogre Shaman, Ogre Scout, Ogre Berserker, and Ogre Champion - to use as templates for typical ogre NPCs. But for specific ogres I might stat up differently, like an ogre chieftan Kagrak who has a combination of shaman-like abilities and barbarian-like abilities.

That's fine, having hundreds of grunts a few scouts a shaman or two a berserker and a champion ads spice to the battle.

There are at least 4 random generators for monsters that I know off:

The Elegant random monster generator
The Esoteric random monster generator
Life form generator (IIRC it's for SWN)
and the theratinomicom (or whatever the one by our friend Eric Diaz is called)
Plus there was one for Cthulhu like mythos/monsters/creatures.

Thanks. Looking up the ones for fantasy, here are the links I got:

Elegant Fantasy Creature Generator
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/263673/Elegant-Fantasy-Creature-Generator

Random Esoteric Creature Generator
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/58916/Random-Esoteric-Creature-Generator-for-Classic-Fantasy-RolePlaying-Games-and-their-Modern-Simulacra

Teratogenicon
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/317448/Teratogenicon


Completely random monsters is a third option a bit different from either of my examples. So I might break down some potential options:

(1) Have a completely random monster - either as a type (i.e. a random new species of monster) or a random unique individual.

(2) Have random abilities or features within a single stat block. I'm thinking of original RuneQuest which has random ability scores for monsters as well as random hit points. Plus some chaos creatures would roll on a table of random Chaos Features.

This was normal in RuneQuest, but isn't common in D&D. It seems not worth the bookkeeping for minor enemies, but potentially useful to vary up big enemies.

(3) Have multiple stat blocks for a monster even within the same species/subspecies. In D&D, this is done for dragons and a few humanoids. A small young blue dragon is different than a large ancient blue dragon; and drow assassin is different than drow mage. Most monster species don't get this treatment, though.

This depends on what the campaign focus is. If the PCs keep meeting different monster types with each encounter, then it doesn't make sense to have many stat blocks for one species. But if they have a series of adventures where they keep fighting ogres, then it makes sense to have more detailed ogres.

I feel like this sometimes the logic goes the other way, though. i.e. There are no series of adventures fighting ogres, because ogres aren't varied enough.

(4) Have a non-random specific stat block for an individual, like a unique NPC.

Re Creature X isn't varied enough:

Where? In the book RAW? I might be a weird bird but I've NEVER left the book limit me (well, this isn't 100% true, at the very begining yes we played RAW), IMHO what limits/should limit the variability of creature X is the rarity (if we're assuming sorta, kinda natural creatures (which IMHO includes some magical creatures that have magic but reproduce by natural means).

Then we have what should be properly named aberrations (no, not the misnomer from D&D), these should all be the BBG and also unique custom built by the GM for his world (Maybe include a few and the tools to build them in your book), think of Cthuloid creatures or those creatures from mythology that are just the one exemplar and not a god, or the last of it's type.

So, the more common a creature is the more alike each individual to each other with the variability we would expect from a real creature. The rarer the creature the less variability IF it reproduces by natural means, then creatures created exnihilo by some god, demon mad wizard to accomplish some goal that could each be totally different from each other as the GM decides and then the real aberrations that have to be each totally unique.

If you're going for something authentic to folklore and pan-folklore to boot, then you need to explain why there are so many different versions of the same monster even within a single culture (e.g. the manticore and griffin both have numerous variants in heraldry). Making a different stat block for every variant and treating it as a separate species with its own ecology is just bloat. Making one archetypal monster with random generation tables to explain the variants saves space.

To give a somewhat more pathetic reply...

Much of my content comes either directly from modules or through my own editing and additions to modules. As such, unless there's a good balance or story reason to vary things up, it's usually just whatever fits the scenario we're playing or what is given (if it clicks with the former). I do like to make the world feel alive and closer to reality if I can, and sometimes this translates into monsters having unique individual traits and personalities, or to there being more lore about a species and it's subtypes than is in the module proper. That said, I still have to work to stray from the module and not just present as printed. I'm still getting used to random generation where it's required or recommended for NPCs, and most of my homebrew either is trash or simply... isn't. Like it doesn't really exist at all.

This is the whole premise of DCC monsters.  So they have a few classic ones in the core book, but there are lots of tables for randomization of abilities for undead, dragons, etc.  And nearly all their published modules have new and/or unique monsters.  They finally caved and kickstarted a monster book this year to get all those in print, but if this is what you're pining for, look no further than DCC.

Yeah, I like the DCC module approach. Every monster seems to be unique or a twist on some existing monster.

On a related note, I feel a lot of D&D and derivative monster books feel this bizarre urge to give their monsters pseudo-naturalistic ecologies and discard the more fantastical aspects of the original myths and bestiaries that inspired them.

For example, in myth/folklore the griffin could "smell" precious metals and used these to line their nests, laid eggs with agate shells, their feathers could cure blindness, and their claws could be made into drinking horns that changed color when containing poison (thus alerting drinkers to assassination attempts). None of this made its way into D&D or derivatives in any form. Griffin feathers aren't a component for the spell Cure Blindness, there's no magic drinking horn that detects poison in drinks made from griffin claw, griffins cannot dowse precious metals, etc.

Same for the basilisk/cockatrice. While it still turns you to stone, its origin as a "cock egg" incubated by a snake or toad (or vice versa) isn't present in any form. Admittedly it would be difficult to explain the preponderance of basilisks if every single one needs to be created by an alchemist beastmaster, but it makes the basilisk/cockatrice that much less fantastical.

Or the Medusa, Minotaur, etc being turned into naturally reproducing species rather than individualized divine curses with very specific backgrounds. D&D5 tried combining both approaches, but as with most of the 5e MM lore it ends up coming out half-baked. Especially compared to their more creative pre-release blogs (now defunct, and nigh-impossible to find in wayback machine) where the writer shared various ideas.

In my brainstorming, I tried to rectify this. For example, with Minotaurs I took inspiration from the original myths plus Mazes & Minotaurs. Minotaurs originate from a divine curse on a royal bloodline, the exact story of which doesn't survive to the present. The original Minotaurs are the Golden Minotaurs, the immortal kings and their descendants now condemned to live within their own personal mazes on another plane that occasionally opens gates to the mortal realm. However, the curse is fickle and can now be contracted by anyone who traps themselves within a maze of their own devising even if its a metaphorical maze of byzantine legal arguments. Minotaurs start out human but steadily become more bull-like as their curse deteriorates and resistance erodes; the physical traits aren't uniform: this can manifest as the classic bull-head, the Renaissance bull-centaur, etc. The final stage are things like the bestial "gorgotaurs", whose hands have been replaced by hooves while still retaining a humanoid torso. Additionally, minotaurs can have unique powers like those in Mazes & Minotaurs: firebreathing, psychic powers, two heads, etc. Their physical appearance reflects their powers and their maze's architecture and landscape design reflects their personality and powers. In a unique twist on both the original myth where the maze trapped the minotaur and the D&D take where they auto-solve mazes, these minotaurs know the layout of their maze perfectly but cannot leave it: it is part of them. Minotaurs can also have minions: the various monsters inhabiting a dungeon that is actually the sovereign minotaur's personal maze. Some younger minotaurs whose curse hasn't completely limited their mobility can lead raids on the mortal plane, if you need those. Minotaur PCs searching for a cure to their advancing curse is a potential option too.

A relevant question I don't see being asked here is "just how often do you plan on having the party run into X?"

Are you, as a GM, going to ever include enough Medusa encounters in a campaign to even need to distinguish them? Ditto for beholders.

Are you planning for the PCs to encounter more than 5 dragons in a campaign? If not, then you've got a "unique" dragon for each of those encounters.

About the only things you're likely to face in multiples enough to make distinctions possibly warrented are the things that also appear in such numbers that war games traditionally averaged out their abilities into a single unit type... i.e. warriors of various humanoid races or undead hordes or demon minions (vs. demon lords who fall into the discussion above... just how many Balor encounters is your campaign going to have?).

Basically, I don't see the need for wide arrays of customization options unless the number of monster types available are so limited you can't otherwise populate your campaign world.

I mean, for me a full length campaign might have 100-200 encounters over its entire span. The 3e MM had about 500 monsters, meaning I could, in theory run two whole campaigns without repeating a monster type unless I wanted to. Why would I need to further customize them?

Only something very focused, like "Against the Giants" where most opponents are of the same type throughout would you need customization options... and many of those can be achieved by adding class levels atop them (i.e. giant fighter, giant cleric, giant wizard).

Basically, this feels a bit like one of those solutions seeking a problem for it to be applied to (with the "a bit" being because I can see a need in a very focused campaign for such options... but not for the average D&D campaign).

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 08, 2023, 12:52:36 PM
About the only things you're likely to face in multiples enough to make distinctions possibly warrented are the things that also appear in such numbers that war games traditionally averaged out their abilities into a single unit type... i.e. warriors of various humanoid races or undead hordes or demon minions (vs. demon lords who fall into the discussion above... just how many Balor encounters is your campaign going to have?).

Basically, I don't see the need for wide arrays of customization options unless the number of monster types available are so limited you can't otherwise populate your campaign world.

First of all, I agree there is no "need". One can have cool historical campaigns without having non-human monsters at all. Or one can have cool campaigns with only monsters exactly by the book of (X) edition of (Y) game. But I think it can also be fun to try out different approaches.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 08, 2023, 12:52:36 PM
Only something very focused, like "Against the Giants" where most opponents are of the same type throughout would you need customization options... and many of those can be achieved by adding class levels atop them (i.e. giant fighter, giant cleric, giant wizard).

Basically, this feels a bit like one of those solutions seeking a problem for it to be applied to (with the "a bit" being because I can see a need in a very focused campaign for such options... but not for the average D&D campaign).

Sure, one can go with the standard for the average D&D campaign, but it's fun to try stuff that isn't the average.

I'm picturing a Norse-themed game where there are only a handful of creature types - like giants (one race), dwarves/elves (which are also one race), and maybe a rare dragon or sea monster. Then there might be a more Nordic-flavored "Against the Giants" of taking on a series of giant fortresses.

If someone comes at this assuming existing D&D stat blocks, then they might be like "There's no variety there. We need ogres and drow and illithids and other monster types." But I think that's the same sort of thinking that PCs are boring if they're just dwarf/elf/human, and one needs kender, drow, tieflings, dragonborn, and other options for variety. There is lots of variety possible without bringing in ever-new monster types in a campaign.

Rather than being distinct by what creature types are there, the different fortresses could be distinct by who the giant ruler of the fortress is, what kind of troops he operates, the tactics and defenses he has, and so forth.

Quote from: jhkim on June 08, 2023, 01:53:23 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 08, 2023, 12:52:36 PM
About the only things you're likely to face in multiples enough to make distinctions possibly warrented are the things that also appear in such numbers that war games traditionally averaged out their abilities into a single unit type... i.e. warriors of various humanoid races or undead hordes or demon minions (vs. demon lords who fall into the discussion above... just how many Balor encounters is your campaign going to have?).

Basically, I don't see the need for wide arrays of customization options unless the number of monster types available are so limited you can't otherwise populate your campaign world.

First of all, I agree there is no "need". One can have cool historical campaigns without having non-human monsters at all. Or one can have cool campaigns with only monsters exactly by the book of (X) edition of (Y) game. But I think it can also be fun to try out different approaches.

Quote from: Chris24601 on June 08, 2023, 12:52:36 PM
Only something very focused, like "Against the Giants" where most opponents are of the same type throughout would you need customization options... and many of those can be achieved by adding class levels atop them (i.e. giant fighter, giant cleric, giant wizard).

Basically, this feels a bit like one of those solutions seeking a problem for it to be applied to (with the "a bit" being because I can see a need in a very focused campaign for such options... but not for the average D&D campaign).

Sure, one can go with the standard for the average D&D campaign, but it's fun to try stuff that isn't the average.

I'm picturing a Norse-themed game where there are only a handful of creature types - like giants (one race), dwarves/elves (which are also one race), and maybe a rare dragon or sea monster. Then there might be a more Nordic-flavored "Against the Giants" of taking on a series of giant fortresses.

If someone comes at this assuming existing D&D stat blocks, then they might be like "There's no variety there. We need ogres and drow and illithids and other monster types." But I think that's the same sort of thinking that PCs are boring if they're just dwarf/elf/human, and one needs kender, drow, tieflings, dragonborn, and other options for variety. There is lots of variety possible without bringing in ever-new monster types in a campaign.

Rather than being distinct by what creature types are there, the different fortresses could be distinct by who the giant ruler of the fortress is, what kind of troops he operates, the tactics and defenses he has, and so forth.

Greetings!

I agree, Jhkim. I was reviewing some campaign regions in my world--specifically a huge Norse region--and while I made a point to establish some room for dwarves, elves, trolls, giants, and dragons--as well as sea monsters!--when I proceeded to really get into developing Norse culture, different tribes, then moved on to some Finns and Pagan Baltic tribal cultures, then the Russians, then the Western Slavs, as well as some Siberian and North Asian cultures--I came to a heretical and surprising realization:

Having a gaggle of hordes of intelligent non-human races really just is not necessary. Having animals, beasts, and monsters are good, but as for other civiliations and cultures, hah! You know? Just within a Norse-like sub-milieu alone--there is enough human variety for war, trading, cultures, and other drama to keep a campaign going for YEARS. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 06, 2023, 05:07:08 PM


Isn't that exactly what other games do according to the following paragraphs of your post?

You want it both ways, to have the Hydra as a singular individual and at the same time to have the Ogres as a race, but not really because they roll for everything.

Let's focus on intelligent monsters (because I think I know you a bit) for a moment and let's call them species (even if in Pseudo medieval settings the name makes no fucking sense):

Are all Ogres exactly the same? No, but they are alike enough as to be recognized as a species. As per the MM Ogre, Oni & Merrow are enough alike as to be considered of the same kin. http://dedpihto.narod.ru/games/Monsters1/MM00229.htm (http://dedpihto.narod.ru/games/Monsters1/MM00229.htm) (Something I disagreee with since Ogre Mage/Oni are clearly trying to model a Japanese monster and doing a shitty job at it.

Even then and there you already had some Ogres with classes, which would solve the sameness issue you seem to have.

Now let's talk about IRL animals... There are about 10,000 species of birds, yet they all are birds, so what's the problem with green, red, bronze, etc Dragons?

Since Lions and Tigers can produce offspring (almost 100% of the time infertile) it seems reasonable to think that other species of Tiger can interbreed among themselves and maybe even produce fertile offspring. So, what's the problem with having Ogre, Ogre Mage and Marrow as the ecological diversity you seem to want?

As for the "but in mythology" thing... Well yes and no, this is only true of SOME mythological monsters not all, usually the more powerful ones, like the Hydra, Cerberus, etc. but even the greeks had Centaurs (which includes Cyprian and Lamian Centaurs), Cyclops, Griffin (at least 3), Hippocampus, Mermaids/Sirens, the Nereids (50 of them), among others.

Another thing to keep in mind is that in mythology, folklore and faerie tales humans, elves, faeries, ogres, giants, nymphs, titans and gods do a whole lot of fucking. Aside from Jason, it's hard to think of a Greek hero who didn't have gods or monsters as ancestors.

I think monsters are over-split. I understand why Gary Gygax did it: If you're trying to sell a hardback book of monsters (or three), you'll need to cram as many creatures into the text as possible. I never saw the need to create whole new monsters when all you really need to do is change a name, description or a few stats for an existing one. Want a new type of humanoid that lives in the hills and terrorizes villagers in the valley below? Just take the goblin, call it a sluagh (an old Gaelic name for goblins*), give them a different skin color, weapons, etc and you're all set.

* Creatures like goblins and elves are often described as spirits as well as living beings. In my example, you could spice up the sluagh by making them undead goblins. The possibilities are endless.

I tend to index on human conflicts and characters. For the rare monsters, I embrace my own version of them.

But I also play with what the game gives me. If I am playing D&D, chromatic dragons it is. In my home game, with my own system, I would stat out and create my own dragons. I currently do not have them in my campaign.

Don't name your kobolds, because you'll be sad when they die.

Quote from: Elfdart on June 09, 2023, 12:58:56 AM
Creatures like goblins and elves are often described as spirits as well as living beings. In my example, you could spice up the sluagh by making them undead goblins. The possibilities are endless.

I remember reading a d20 3pp about fey (IIRC it was Complete Guide to Fey) which gave them this curious origin as recycled souls that existed in a liminal state adjacent to and yet outside the cycle of life and death, the cosmological opposite of undead. In order for them to be born, they had to recycle an existing soul such as a ghost or elemental, a mortal who wasn't claimed by a deity (referencing the post-Christian folklore about baptism), or have sex with a mortal to get the necessary spark of life to conceive.

One of the issues with the D&D monster categories versus folklore is that D&D doesn't really have a coherent theology and doesn't reflect any single real cosmology/theology. The above cosmological explanation of fey probably doesn't fit most D&D worlds, and the closest comparison to real religion is a mix of some post-Christian beliefs about faeries between fallen angels who took no side in the war between God and Lucifer, the ghosts of dead folks, etc.

D&D's fey category is a hodgepodge of Scottish, British and Irish fairies (some of them anyway, as the Dullahan is undead for some reason) and a few Greek rustic divinities like dryads and satyrs. But Genies are typed as elementals even though from a comparative mythology perspective they're Arabic fairies and "fairy" was an accepted translation when Arabic fairy tales were first translated into English. And Yaoguai and Yokai got their own new type called "spirit" in the Oriental Adventures supplements. Trolls, a generic word for loads of Scandinavian fairies of variable sizes including what we would recognize as goblins, dwarves and wood-nymphs, are typed as giants.

It's a mess.