Thursday, September 22, 2011

Never had a monster manual

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.

3 comments:

  1. I would say that the impact is evident, which is a good thing, IMO. :)

    Custom, built-from-scratch, critters is my preference, too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree, I'm a d.i.y. rpg guy. Perhaps that is another reason I like the L.L. rule set.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yeah, 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