PDA

View Full Version : How Detailed Do You Like Foes (monster manual/beastiary etc.)



CharonsHelper
2018-02-06, 11:15 AM
I've been working on a space western style TTRPG for a couple of years, and the biggest thing I have left to work on is The Threat Guide of the Starlanes. I have a whole theory about how the Monster Manual is a secret to D&D's success. (Gives ideas of adventures / inherent variety in play / ease of GMing etc.)

Anyway - I was just curious: How much detail you as a player generally prefer for foes? Keep it to stats? Physical description? Or have description of how they fit in the setting along with tactics and a variety of encounter types.

Currently I've been writing the latter - with description, setting info, & tactics. Plus - since they come in clumps (such as all of the different types of zerg/tyranid style bug aliens, or types of psychotic robots) I have pre-built encounters which have a mix of foes - usually with 1-2 tougher ones and multiple weaker. (This especially works in Space Dogs due to the Morale system making taking out the leaders advantageous.)


Capeks

The capeks come in a multitude of sizes and shapes, though the majority are somewhat humanoid in order to better serve their now vanished masters the ignav. However, that has not kept the capeks from changing over their centuries since their masters went missing. Some have begun to wander the galaxy in search for the ignav, and some have begun to lash out against other species.
While most capeks seem logical, others are unpredictable in the extreme, and occasionally the same capek will shift from one extreme to the other for no obvious reason. If encountered in combat, the capeks tend to make implacable enemies, and various units will sometimes act in a unity and precision which would shame the most polished human parade troops.

Comites
The Comites are the most numerous of the capeks. It is said that every ignav household had at least one Comite serving them, and many ignav had at least one personal Comite. Perhaps more than any other capeks, the Comites have been lost since their masters’ disappearance, and undoubtedly the effect upon them was felt the most quickly.
In addition to being the servants of the ignav, the Comites also serve as basic mechanics for other varieties of capeks, likely because of their similar stature to the ignav who had first built them.
The Comites are thin, to the point of being spindly and, perhaps in reflection of their lost masters, they move in an almost avian fashion.

Comite Base Ability Scores
Brawn: -1 (Racial tertiary)
Dexterity: +0 (Racial secondary)
Agility: +0 (Racial primary)
Stamina: -1 (Racial tertiary)
Sharpness: +0 (Racial primary)
Willpower: -1 (Racial secondary)
Absorption: 0/0
Base Movement Speed: 5sqs (10 meters) / +2sqs (4 meters)
Morale: Willpower -2

Waiter - Comite (Thug 1) (Human Scale)

Threat Rating: 3
Height: 1.3-1.6 meters
Weight: 35-60kg
Brawn: 2
Dexterity: 4
Agility: 5
Stamina: 2
Sharpness: 4
Willpower: 3
Base Movement Speed: 5sqs (10 meters) / +2sqs (4 meters)
Standard Weaponry:
Pistol (one hand) – Attack 2d8+4 / 2d6 dmg
Shortsword (one hand) – Attack 3d6+9 / 1d6+2 dmg
Carving Knife (one hand) – Attack 2d6+9 / 1d4+2 dmg

Vitality: 2 / Wounds: 4 / Psyche: 7
Absorption: 0/0
Passive Defense: 11
Durability: 8
Mental Defense: 9
Awareness Spot/Listen DCs: 13/19
Morale: +1
This comite was once a waiter at a high-end ignav restaurant. After waiting for more customers for decades, he finally snapped, attacking other species in some sort of hope that their actions will bring the ignav masters home. After all, they are nothing without purpose.

Bloodthirsty Comite (Thug 6) (Human Scale)

Threat Rating: 8
Height: 1.3-1.6 meters
Weight: 35-60kg
Brawn: 3
Dexterity: 5
Agility: 6
Stamina: 3
Sharpness: 6
Willpower: 4
Base Movement Speed: 5sqs (10 meters) / +2sqs (4 meters)
Standard Weaponry:
Pistol (one hand) – Attack 2d8+5 / 2d6 dmg
Shortsword (one hand) – Attack 3d6+11 / 1d6+3 dmg

Vitality: 8 / Wounds: 6 / Psyche: 10
Absorption: 2/2
Passive Defense: 12 (13 with shield)
Durability: 9
Mental Defense: 10
Awareness Spot/Listen DCs: 19/28
Morale: +2
Having attacked others for decades, this comite has found that it has begun to relish in bloodshed, using it to fill the hole that its missing masters used to fill. Not just pushing boundaries in an attempt to lure its masters home, it is also lashing out against a galaxy which it feels has somehow hidden the ignav away.

There are several other types of capeks as well - hence comite being a sub-category.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-06, 12:13 PM
I've been working on a space western style TTRPG for a couple of years, and the biggest thing I have left to work on is The Threat Guide of the Starlanes. I have a whole theory about how the Monster Manual is a secret to D&D's success. (Gives ideas of adventures / inherent variety in play / ease of GMing etc.)

Anyway - I was just curious: How much detail you as a player generally prefer for foes? Keep it to stats? Physical description? Or have description of how they fit in the setting along with tactics and a variety of encounter types.

Currently I've been writing the latter - with description, setting info, & tactics. Plus - since they come in clumps (such as all of the different types of zerg/tyranid style bug aliens, or types of psychotic robots) I have pre-built encounters which have a mix of foes - usually with 1-2 tougher ones and multiple weaker. (This especially works in Space Dogs due to the Morale system making taking out the leaders advantageous.)


If the game is fixed on one setting, more description is better. If it's more flexible, paint with broad brush-strokes.

I end up discarding most of the concrete fluff of 5e monsters because my setting is quite different. I keep the tactics and gross characteristics, but names and places don't mean as much.

Geddy2112
2018-02-06, 12:45 PM
If the game is fixed on one setting, more description is better. If it's more flexible, paint with broad brush-strokes.

I end up discarding most of the concrete fluff of 5e monsters because my setting is quite different. I keep the tactics and gross characteristics, but names and places don't mean as much.

I second this for common or somewhat common monsters.

For monsters that are of animal intelligence, mindless, or common enemies(orks and goblins in most settings), I like having tactics as a general rule of thumb. If this is some kind of predator animal vs just defends territory. Or a group of marauding killers vs ambush trapsetters.

I really like fluff when it comes to unread-since all undead are creations spawned from horrific events, it gives insight into their tactics and motivations, as well as where they are found. A good undead can be an entire story arc or even quest in itself, even moreso if you bring up the events of its life. If they have unique or special abilities tied into said events or their previous lives, all the better. I also like this for reincarnated monsters like Rakshasa's and similar beings that require an intricate past to exist. Even some constructs fall into this category-how and why they are created can heavily influence the encounter.

With legendary or solo monsters(not the types listed above), I tend to discard the fluff or heavily rewrite it. Even the most basics of "this color of dragon is haughty, vain and boastful" I might reskin to be meek, humble and reserved.

Lapak
2018-02-06, 01:06 PM
I strongly prefer fluff-heavy delivery. I can put together a set of stats; what I want is to hear is what the creature’s behavior/society is like, how they prefer to engage with potential threats, and where they fit into the greater world. Give me broken stats and great fluff and I can fix it; give me a pile of stats with no soul and I won’t bother.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-06, 01:38 PM
If the game is fixed on one setting, more description is better. If it's more flexible, paint with broad brush-strokes.

I end up discarding most of the concrete fluff of 5e monsters because my setting is quite different. I keep the tactics and gross characteristics, but names and places don't mean as much.


I strongly prefer fluff-heavy delivery. I can put together a set of stats; what I want is to hear is what the creature’s behavior/society is like, how they prefer to engage with potential threats, and where they fit into the greater world. Give me broken stats and great fluff and I can fix it; give me a pile of stats with no soul and I won’t bother.

Especially since my mechanics are heavily linked to the setting (you could certainly use the base engine for something else - but you'd have to use a lot of the same sci-fi tech without re-writes of sub-systems and equipment) I guess I'll continue with the approximate level I currently have.

Any feedback on my example above? That about the level of description which tickles your fancy? (In addition to encounter groups at the end of the entire capek section with various mixes.)


I really like fluff when it comes to unread-since all undead are creations spawned from horrific events, it gives insight into their tactics and motivations, as well as where they are found. A good undead can be an entire story arc or even quest in itself, even moreso if you bring up the events of its life. If they have unique or special abilities tied into said events or their previous lives, all the better. I also like this for reincarnated monsters like Rakshasa's and similar beings that require an intricate past to exist. Even some constructs fall into this category-how and why they are created can heavily influence the encounter.

Since it's set in a semi-hard space western setting, there aren't a lot of undead monsters around. :smallbiggrin:

Wasteomana
2018-02-06, 03:46 PM
For me I prefer a good stat block and then a lot of fluff as separate things. 4e style stat blocks made life really easy by having everything you could need to run the monster on the page with the mechanics separate from the fluff. That is what I want when I see a monster manual.

In other words, distill the mechanics down to as small of a block of information as possible (preferably half a page if printed out in normal sized font) and then go ham on any fluff you want to write after the mechanics. Or reverse them and put fluff first works as well, just keep them separate so I can use the fluff during prep and use the mechanics during play.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-06, 03:50 PM
For me I prefer a good stat block and then a lot of fluff as separate things. 4e style stat blocks made life really easy by having everything you could need to run the monster on the page with the mechanics separate from the fluff. That is what I want when I see a monster manual.

In other words, distill the mechanics down to as small of a block of information as possible (preferably half a page if printed out in normal sized font) and then go ham on any fluff you want to write after the mechanics. Or reverse them and put fluff first works as well, just keep them separate so I can use the fluff during prep and use the mechanics during play.

I do actually agree that fluff & mechanics should be easy to differentiate. I plan to have the stat block itself formatted differently - probably within a cream colour box or some such.

I like fluff, but RPG books which mix them with rules so much that it's hard to look things up get on my nerves.

johnbragg
2018-02-06, 04:13 PM
I think the most important thing is a one sentence or so hook description. Comites maybe serve the ignan or maybe not and... I kind of zoned out.

Comites are seven foot tall blue and violet blobs with twelve triple jointed arms each.

Comites are massive blue skinned humsnoids engineered for kanir by the Ignans.

Comites are intelligent spiders.

Comites are snake-shaped robots who feed off of the radiation leaking out of the Core.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-02-06, 04:39 PM
Or pictures. I use those to show to the players a lot.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-06, 04:46 PM
Or pictures. I use those to show to the players a lot.

Always go with the pretty pictures! (And yes - I may have already spent a substantial chunk of change on custom artwork. Though - I don't have any capeks yet. :smallredface:)

Though - a shorter summary opening probably isn't a bad idea either.

johnbragg
2018-02-06, 05:03 PM
Always go with the pretty pictures! (And yes - I may have already spent a substantial chunk of change on custom artwork. Though - I don't have any capeks yet. :smallredface:)

Though - a shorter summary opening probably isn't a bad idea either.

I don't think it needs to be shorter. It just needs to lead off strong.

Capeks were the servant race of the advanced Ignan empire, bred for loyalty. With the disappearance of the Ignans, they drift through life seeking purpose. Those who can give them purpose find them tenacious allies, their devotion bred into the bone.

FreddyNoNose
2018-02-07, 12:06 AM
This is something I posted on usenet 20+ years ago for getting new players interested/hooked on the game.

Not much detail here so hard to say. The idea will be to hook them for
later gaming sessions. I stay away from details that slow the pace too
much like paperwork and detailing where each item they carry is located.
Just get them going.

Make them do some thinking.
Let them get into combats which they win or only NPC allies die.
Let them do a little roleplaying for information.

What to do or not to do (IMO):
Don't say "You see five goblins coming at you with spears". Try to
describe what they are seeing and let there imaginations take place.

Example (I know it isn't great):

GM: "You party comes to the base of a large rock outcropping which rises
at least 150 feet into the air. You see several paths cut in the grass
coming from the hill and going out in different directions. You hear the
sounds of birds and crickets, and occasionally the awful sound of the
locust piercing your ears."

Player: "I look at where the paths lead."

GM: "One path goes to the North out of view, perhaps around the hill.
Another goes west in to the grove of pine trees and at 5 foot wide is the
the widest of the paths. The last path is along the creek where your
party came from. The paths join together at near the base of the hill and
disappear behind a tall stack of large rocks and boulder."

Players: "we will follow the path leading behind the rocks."

GM: Roll for surprise (Either do it yourself or let them do it). "As you
move forward you see something moving from behind the rocks. It is a
creature with dull red skin carrying a two spears and wearing a pale gray
sort of leather armor. Three more of these creatures are following and
are brandishing what appears to be a mace with lots of pointy spikes.
The sounds of falling pebbles alert you to a fifth creature who has
climbed atop the tall stack of larges rock and has a sling in hand."

Newbie Player: "Holy ****. I never wanted to leave the farm behind."
Player: "What are they doing? Are they attacking?"

GM: "The creature with the spears is making weird noises and shaking his
spear at you."

Player: "Well they seem to tough for us, lets turn around and go back to
town."

GM: The gm makes a reaction roll - the goblin leader is so upset by the
cowardice he has just seen he yells the attack order to his people. :)
Actually he might sense weakness in the party and decide to exploit it.
Turning their backs to the goblins is just the opportunity he might take.

You get the idea.


This can be a time of wonder and fascination for them so don't spoil it.
Try to describe everything during the adventure to get them use to
visualizing.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-07, 02:05 AM
I think my favorite thing from to get from a monster entry is a clear indication of how an encounter (combat or otherwise) with this critter will be DIFFERENT from other encounters with other critters. That's a pretty nebulous and potentially broad criterion, but those monster entries that excel at it are the ones I end up using over and over.

This can be as simple as a really great picture or physical description. The remorhaz picture from the 3.5 MM was probably responsible for two or three arctic sessions over the course of my games, just because I really liked how easy it was to set the mood for my players just by showing the picture.

It can be distinct and interesting tactics that the creature uses that set it apart from other creatures. That can be backed mechanically or simply enforced by fluff and GM ingenuity. Tucker's kobolds are an example of the latter. Goblins from 4E are a good example of the former, where the game statistics really lent the critters a strong identity.

It can be great fluff that positions a critter strongly in its home environment.

It might be a signature mechanical ability that strongly affects how characters interact with the monster, like a rust monsters effect on beloved metal items, a ghost's intangibility, a mimic's camouflage, or a golem's immunity to magic.

It can be a roleplaying hook. I've had great fun RPing a slow-witted ettin whose heads argued with each other constantly, or an avaricious sprite obsessed with whatever shiny bauble the PCs own that catches its attention.

I could probably go on, but I'm getting pretty repetitive. :smallbiggrin: But basically, I like an entry to be detailed enough to really sell me on why I'd use that particular creature in my game, as opposed to any of the other critters that fulfill the same general game design niche for a similar encounter. Since that also tends to be the sort of monster that stands out as memorable to my players, it works out for everyone.

In any case, I totally agree with you that the Monster Manual is probably a key part of D&D's success and lasting appeal. I've never really thought of it in those stark terms, but it's a genius theory.

FreddyNoNose
2018-02-07, 02:27 AM
I think my favorite thing from to get from a monster entry is a clear indication of how an encounter (combat or otherwise) with this critter will be DIFFERENT from other encounters with other critters. That's a pretty nebulous and potentially broad criterion, but those monster entries that excel at it are the ones I end up using over and over.

This can be as simple as a really great picture or physical description. The remorhaz picture from the 3.5 MM was probably responsible for two or three arctic sessions over the course of my games, just because I really liked how easy it was to set the mood for my players just by showing the picture.

It can be distinct and interesting tactics that the creature uses that set it apart from other creatures. That can be backed mechanically or simply enforced by fluff and GM ingenuity. Tucker's kobolds are an example of the latter. Goblins from 4E are a good example of the former, where the game statistics really lent the critters a strong identity.

It can be great fluff that positions a critter strongly in its home environment.

It might be a signature mechanical ability that strongly affects how characters interact with the monster, like a rust monsters effect on beloved metal items, a ghost's intangibility, a mimic's camouflage, or a golem's immunity to magic.

It can be a roleplaying hook. I've had great fun RPing a slow-witted ettin whose heads argued with each other constantly, or an avaricious sprite obsessed with whatever shiny bauble the PCs own that catches its attention.

I could probably go on, but I'm getting pretty repetitive. :smallbiggrin: But basically, I like an entry to be detailed enough to really sell me on why I'd use that particular creature in my game, as opposed to any of the other critters that fulfill the same general game design niche for a similar encounter. Since that also tends to be the sort of monster that stands out as memorable to my players, it works out for everyone.

In any case, I totally agree with you that the Monster Manual is probably a key part of D&D's success and lasting appeal. I've never really thought of it in those stark terms, but it's a genius theory.

Your point is good. I like to use these types of things for colorful background when when characters are in the tavern or guild halls hearing interesting tidbits of information.

Ex: "Gnolls of the Green Hills always put a killing blow on anyone on the ground during combat to make sure their dead." Not only does this add color but it give characters information. They now know that playing dead in combat in that situation is a very bad idea. Naturally, it doesn't have to be simply "Gnolls of the green hills always put a killing blow on anyone on the ground during combat to make sure their dead.". It could be a colorful retelling of a story of combat with an older fighter type and another NPC might chime in with "Gnolls of the green hills always put a killing blow on anyone on the ground during combat to make sure their dead."

This is also useful for the DM who can now think about how different bands of creatures do things. Maybe the Gnolls of the Craggy Hills like to cook humans alive for food!

Another example is Basilisks. You hear stories of Basilisks nearby. There are stories of "statues" in the local woods and that Basilisks feed on their stoned victims. With the general idea being this is how they feed, first turning something to stone and eating them for nutrition.

So in some ways, it sounds like just flavor but it is useful in other ways. Plus it gets you thinking about how certain things work in your game.

Jay R
2018-02-08, 11:00 AM
Don't confuse what I usually need with what I might occasionally need.

Most of the time, the Prootwattles will merely attack and get slaughtered, so I only use the combat information. OK, I'll pull that part out.

One day, the party may capture a single Prootwattle. Then I need to look up enough about Prootwattles to know how they react to being captured (and how the rest of the tribe reacts to one of them being captured).

Maybe once in thirty years of gaming, they will enter a prootwattle village looking for potential allies. Then I will need all the social organization and cultural information.

You need to provide all the information I might ever need, not just what I usually need.

CharonsHelper
2018-02-08, 04:40 PM
You need to provide all the information I might ever need, not just what I usually need.

Interesting point. Though - I do think that what you usually need (the stat block primarily) needs to be separate enough so that the extra fluff doesn't make it hard to find.

Steel Mirror
2018-02-08, 04:53 PM
Interesting point. Though - I do think that what you usually need (the stat block primarily) needs to be separate enough so that the extra fluff doesn't make it hard to find.I'm actually a fan of smaller entries that put the important stuff front-and-center, while leaving a lot of the nitty gritty things that you'll need once in a campaign or whatever either mostly implied, or available to be found in another source. Or just free to be invented by the GM. I loved Volo's for instance, but I wouldn't want that level of detail in every MM entry.

I have no idea if I'm typical in that way, but I find typical MM entries to be maybe a tad too short, but overall at least in the right ballpark for length. Sometimes I wish the entries would be more interesting, but that's not a problem that would be solved simply by laying on more trivia about their clan structure or their relationship to yet another fallen god or ancient empire of evilness.

Telok
2018-02-08, 11:19 PM
The players never see the stats. If the players get to 'see' anything it will be a description and maybe a picture. Unfortunately I'm playing with an inexperienced DM, however that has made me aware of how a motivated but novice uses monsters.

Important: how it looks AND how it acts. Plant monster with tentacles vs plant monster with flowers doesn't make any difference if they're acting the same.

Important: tactics and special abilities. Front and center or stuck in the stat block. Several times our DM found a tactic or ability on another page or muddled in amongst fluffy text that he wasn't supposed to read to us that he also missed because he was skimming as we played.

Important: if a monster has a weakness or vulnerability it sholud be easily discoverable. Remember, the players don't see the stats and the DM might not be adept at descriptions. Don't assume that the players know if a critter takes half or double damage. Try to make vulnerabilities have an obvious side effect, a change in tactics or a special attack now working are posibilities

Longer term and for more advanced DMs you should have a little about how the critter fits into the game and the world. One of the monsters we fought had a powerful paralysis ability, and we fought a pair of them. The ability wasn't really so good, it was just explained in a different part of the book. But we asked if the critters were a mated pair and wanted to see if we could find a nest to maybe take a stab at taming a few young ones. That stumped our DM because there was no info beyond a physical description and the combat stats, so that whole idea got nixed. Later we couldn't even decide if the things were reptiles, mammals, or plants. Eggs, spores, carnivores, scavengers, solitary, herd, pack, there was just no information beyond Fight! stuff.

If the players will mostly interact with monsters through combat then the monsters need to be distinct in combat. One of our group's bigger problems with several of the recent D&Ds is the lack of definition in so many monsters. I'm sure that in our 4e game we fought six or seven flavors of gnolls, be we couldn't tell the difference because the only one with anything but a damage doing weapon attack was some sort of caster that made a half speed zone. I'm sure there were minions and strikers and solos and whatnot, but they were all interchangable bags of various sizes of hit points.