So I was reading Monsters and Manuals , about making customizing your Orcs. Now, while I like the options there for making weird orcs, at that point I figure they aren't Orcs. They are goatmen or monkey demons or what have you.
Then I started wondering if this might be because I never owned (or used) a monster manual. Eventually I did get a tattered Monster Manual 2 (from 1e) for use with 2e. But I never really did much more than look at the pictures 99% of the time because really: Those monsters are not that useful or common.
No orcs, no goblins, no wolves or centaurs. So I had to make every monster a custom monster. If I am making up all the stats for orcs anyways, turning them into a goatman is really not any easier than just making a goatman (who I use far more often than orcs come to think of it). However if I had been used to having a set of stats and templates for orcs it probably would have been easier. Looking at how monsters are handled in Neoclassical Geek Revival, I wonder how much it is influenced by having to make my own damn monsters.
Magic Realm Combat Example
4 hours ago
I would say that the impact is evident, which is a good thing, IMO. :)
ReplyDeleteCustom, built-from-scratch, critters is my preference, too.
I agree, I'm a d.i.y. rpg guy. Perhaps that is another reason I like the L.L. rule set.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I mainly agree with the d.i.y. approach. If the change is an easy cosmetic switch like creating "frost orcs" or "water goblins" then I'd use the baseline stats with a couple tweaks. But a bugbear and an ape-man should have a notably different mechanical implementation.
ReplyDelete