Local Monster Flavors (Topic Split)

Talking with my good friend Paul Foisy (he runs Chicago, you should play there) he brought up a point that I wanted to make here: Scaling is a wily demon who tends to run roughshod o'r even the most prepared soul. That is, what might be sticking in many people's craw is the idea that a lineated Monster DB would be a Hard and Fast repository of scaled cards, eg: "All Goblins MUST BE 20 body; 1-h Edged; and Waylay" <full stop>. While that is one way such a document could be forged, I think there's another which might be more functional.

In truth, my main interest is less in how any given monster is statted and more in how a monster's salient characteristics are cited. That is, I think a Monster DB, instead of the above entry, could read: "Goblin, idiot-intelligence, low-threat level, simple weapons and spells, penchant for shiny objects, doesn't like pie, found throughout Fortannis". The idea would be to have a "Monster Committee" which would create and then maintain an outline of how critters should act, be portrayed, respond, etc. A descriptive Bestiary, of sorts. The Bestiary would outline a series of general concepts like Challenge Rating, Intelligence level, General Weaknesses/Advantages ("Trolls are often susceptible to Flame", "Undead are usually immune to Ice"), Physical description, Roleplay hints, which would be understood to apply across the Alliance. The details are murky, but the document would have a paragraph or two on each base-critter and the entries would slowly expand as various Chapters offer up new critter types. Since the Bestiary would be universally available and would grow with submissions from each Chapter, it would also mean that Chapters could easily and quickly involve creatures from other lands in their plot, thus entwining distant games and involving unrelated characters in a single history.

In this way, though the actual build-points between a Seattle and a New Jersey goblin would probably differ greatly, both critters would be instantly recognizable by anyone in the Alliance as "A Goblin". An Albertan Player visiting San Fran might not know how many to toss, but she sure as heck knows Flame is the best way to gut a troll.

With this schema, there would more than enough room for Chapter variety as the Bestiary could include Chapter unique critters but no one else need use 'em; Chapters could scale their critters as appropriate since the Bestiary doesn't match for stats; and since the DB would be a general set of guidelines, there is more than enough room for local flavour and that sense of "adventure and spirit" one feels when traveling to a land where the food is spiced just a bit differently.
 
Adding text documents to the MDB giving definitions as to what the monsters of each type should be is actually pretty easy from an Access programming standpoint, but I'm still in favor of having a goblin be a goblin. The MDB should exist to provide an easily accessible stable of stock fantasy monsters that any new chapter can use when they start. It should be diverse enough that if a new chapter wants to have a (insert low level monster here) weekend and needs a big baddie they can throw an APL 15 (Insert bigger version of same monster) at the chapter as the "general" and let the 30 level 2 PCs beat it up without having to do the trial and rez that tends to happen when you have new desk people. Right now only a few monsters are supported to do this with the standard monster DB. The way I'm thinking in proposing an expansion of the DB is to give new chapters more things to throw out that are pre-set so that the plot folks there can concentrate on story rather than mechanics. On the high end I'd like to see the really big stuff (Gryphons, Liches, Fae Nobles, Vampires, Elemental Lords I'm looking at YOU) be given a boost so that the things that are supposed to be the peak of deadliness in the fantasy genre aren't eviscibait like they are now. I'd be ok with bigger cards but I think making packets to help teams build these monsters makes them cooler because they can be customized to a specific chapter's needs while still adhering to a design philosophy.

Yes, I just said that. I want a consistent monster design philosophy for the Alliance.
 
My issue is that requiring an adherence to such a database means dictating a specific plot-style to plot teams. Speaking personally, I prefer to run a game in which you are never entirely certain if the creature you face is a "high level monster" or a "low level monster" just because it's creature type X. Not only that, but I prefer a game in which the local cultures and archetypes must be learned rather than dictated by a specific template. We don't use goblins, but if we did, I don't want players new to the Oregon game to take it for granted with "Oh, it's a goblin, this will be easy."

Part of what makes being a new player to the game itself is learning the martial pecking order in the world. When you start running a game for players that have been around the block nine times already, the only thing they have left to experience as new is the social and political landscape, even if they're playing brand-new characters. The best way to keep the martial learning aspect of the game alive is to break away from templates.

Personally, if the game were to ever evolve to require that monster cards and cultures were dictated by a national document or database, I'd just switch every NPC and Monster Card to human, where nothing is dictated and everything is fair game, because it encourages the style of game that I am interested in running.
 
@jp: So you encourage a martial pecking order? New PCs learn that from the established PCs, whose heights the new PCs can never reach. Plot then encourages this by having the person who got hooked on a mod 20 minutes into their first event ever after only reading Tolkien and thinking "I'm a High Orc. This person has issues with goblins. I'm going to help this person kill goblins because Ork>Goblin." as this assumption is not unreasonable. Two magic death spells and a rez later we no longer have a new player.

For a franchised endeavor to be successful there must be a common element when one goes to another franchise. When new players show up at HQ they learn what a goblin and kobold are, I don't think it's unreasonable for the same players to got to another chapter for their second event and expect that goblins and kobolds are the same things (though perhaps now a little easier to defeat due to extra build). All I can think here is that you feel you are somehow better equipped to decide what the stats are for fantasy tropes than the people who built the game a quarter century ago that you have the privilege of writing for are.

I'm not saying you're wrong. Maybe you have a conduit into what a goblin "is" that we others lack. If that's what you feel I won't take that away from you, but none of this stuff actually exists and a consensus helps the game more than the fluffing of a single player's/writer's/owner's ego.

We are an Alliance bound in rules, hatred of Necro (officially) and most importantly love of this odd hobby we share. If you want to switch everything in your database to Human JP I ask two things:

1: Auto-adjudicate any death I take where the word resist or phase is involved.

2: Don't card me when I refuse to take hits from red makeupped humans who aren't properly physrepping their race.

I find your dismissal of even the existing database distressing JP given your documented stances on not having secret rules and defining every esoteric rules quandary. Why do you not support standardization when it comes to things that interact with anything other than your mind? I am in charge of plot for the oldest chapter in the Alliance. This is not to brag more than to highlight that I have over 20 years of history weighing down on every plot-line my team and I propose. I LOVE THIS. Every time I get a new plot proposal I have to consult my player's guide and the 70+ pounds of pre-word processor hard copy I received when I got this job to make sure that I am in line with what came before and that I am respecting the writers' vision of what something should be.

It's not about me. It's not about my plotlines and monsters. It's about the game we all love. If you think you know better than those who came before then prove it by building on what they gave you. The wheel has already been invented, fire has been brought down from the mountain. With these simple tools we can make pretty much anything, just don't urinate on those who gave you those tools.
 
I do also take issue with the idea of standardization of monsters. I don't want every kobold to be a silly critter who dies easy. I would like there to be room for there to be a kobold overlord who is going to amass an army after years and years of oppression by random adventurers killing the young and the weak, they have finally had enough and are going to seek revenge on the other sentient beings. and i wouldn't want that little thing to be a joke, i would really want it to mean something that such a thing can happen. and have it actually be a threat, because otherwise there is no significant theme to it, its just another silly little kobold dreaming delusions of grandeur, instead of that hunting down non-threatening things can provoke a response.
 
Please read the above posts where provisions are made for larger versions of said monsters and for plot to build their own beasties, this does not diminish the fact that we are less of an Alliance if everyone has their own idea what standard fantasy monsters are. This actually worries me when we're supposed to be a transferable game and even the most basic level of PC/Plot interaction (made to die monsters) does not have even a tiny bit of consistency. If there's a plot reason to change things that's awesome and it's what makes chapters different, but if there can't be agreement on what the (and I'm sorry I'm going to the video game example but it's what we're moving towards) tutorial should be then we cannot expect players to have a vision of what the game outside their specific chapter is.
 
I understand what you mean, but it is something that makes chapters distinct, and part of what gives each world flavor is what their monsters are. I understand there are reasons to standardize theme, but I believe the reasons to let them be different are a little more compelling so that places are different. In my home chapter goblins are horrible scary necromancy throwing monsters, who are childish, and purely evil. then i traveled, and i met goblins for the first time there, character terrified until none of them whipped out any aura and died pretty quickly. I enjoyed the experience, even though that was the only real difference between the monsters in the two chapters.

and really, i have not met a new player that they traveled to another chapter before learning the workings of the game first. but that's anecdotal
 
I don't want players new to the Oregon game to take it for granted with "Oh, it's a goblin, this will be easy."

Just curious... why not? I don't get why this is a bad thing.
 
Ezri said:
I don't want players new to the Oregon game to take it for granted with "Oh, it's a goblin, this will be easy."
Just curious... why not? I don't get why this is a bad thing.
Because, in my mind, it's metagaming. You're no long playing the role of a person with a sword and some years of experience facing off against some green ugly bastard with a jagged obsidian sword dripping with blood; you're a character card standing opposite a pre-determined set of stats, and you judge the situation based on the stats rather than the in-game, fantasy situation. We already have a game that removes much of the risk and drama from combat - it's okay for you're best buddy to get struck down with an eviscerate... he's got a whole minute before a Cure Light won't solve that problem, and five minutes beyond that is solved with what is now a mid-tier spell (based on availability and APL). A sword held to the throat of some victim isn't a threat, because it takes three seconds to slit a throat by way of the torso, with plenty of time afterwards to pop a spell and undo all the hubbub. Not knowing what you might be facing is one of the few aspects of the game that keeps the tension alive.

Toddo said:
@jp: So you encourage a martial pecking order?
No, but one exists nonetheless. Players don't learn "Don't mess with the dwarves", they learn "Don't mess with Gimli". By the same token, I'd rather players learn "Don't mess with Kravash" than "don't mess with goblins".

Plot then encourages this by having the person who got hooked on a mod 20 minutes into their first event ever after only reading Tolkien and thinking "I'm a High Orc. This person has issues with goblins. I'm going to help this person kill goblins because Ork>Goblin." as this assumption is not unreasonable. Two magic death spells and a rez later we no longer have a new player.
Not to be a putz, but we're not running an LotR LARP. That assumption is unreasonable, just as it would be unreasonable for them to expect Ravenloft goblins. Not all mummies are Bela Legosi, some are The Rock. Not all zombies are Night of the Living Dead circa 1968, some are 28 Days Later.

I think every good plot writer comes into the role thinking they have the next great idea. They come in going "I haven't seen this, maybe I should run that!". If they don't, I suspect they'd be better off as dedicated NPCs or Monster Marshals. Plotsters stat their stories for what they think 1 - suits the needs of the story, and 2 - will please the greatest number of their players. I wouldn't be so bold as to think that I could stat monsters effectively for the Chicago or Ashbury games. I wouldn't want to write plot for those chapters without first having a year or two of PCing and NPCing in either chapter, because not only do I not know what the APL is, but I don't know what the local players find enjoyable, the style of game they like, or how many non-APL resources they have at their disposal. And that's rather the point. Would you want me dictating not just what stats you're allowed to put on your cards, but also what type of culture you're allowed to run your monsters under?

We are an Alliance bound in rules, hatred of Necro (officially) and most importantly love of this odd hobby we share. If you want to switch everything in your database to Human JP I ask two things:

1: Auto-adjudicate any death I take where the word resist or phase is involved.

2: Don't card me when I refuse to take hits from red makeupped humans who aren't properly physrepping their race.
Strengthened weapons, oil of slipperiness, paste of stickiness are book-defined Resists, off the top of my head (not including if I decided to throw in the occassional other PC race where Resists are pretty common). And why can't humans wear red makeup? If there are no crazy red-faced creatures that require it (and setting aside people wearing blush or with assorted small tribal tattoos), why wouldn't you treat people in red makeup as, well, people in red makeup ala Braveheart? Besides which - in a human-only database, who cares about resists and phases when skillstored dodges, plus cloaks and banes do the same job (often more effectively)? Spirit-lock handles any "But, I want all that sweet, sweet loot" urges. Every resource the PCs have that make them super-burly are available to the NPCs.

I find your dismissal of even the existing database distressing JP given your documented stances on not having secret rules and defining every esoteric rules quandary.
If monster card stats were to become a rule, I'd want them in the rulebook. They're not, so they're not, and I'm pretty okay with that (much like I'm okay with flaws on scrolls not being specified per-scroll in the rulebook - there is a wide assortment of variation). At the same time, rules are the mechanics of playing the game. Humans don't have pre-defined stats, but they do have a body of stats and resources ranging in power-levels far and wide based on the rulebook. Monsters should be no different in that regard. There are a set of rules in the rulebook from which they may draw any number of them to make them effective at a wide range of power levels. As long as we all know what to do when hit with a packet accompanied by the incant "I grant you the gift of literacy!", it's pretty much all good.

You say you're okay with significantly different stats so long as "there's a plot reason". I guess I don't know what you mean by that. To me, a "plot-reason" means "established as historically fitting for this given region" and "suited stat-wise and entertainment-wise to the local playerbase". So long as the stats don't differ wildly from what has been established regionally and/or by spectacular events and they advance the story you're telling in an entertaining fashion.
 
I really want to move away from the idea of a Monster Database being a rigid series of monster stats and toward a series of descriptors. There is plenty of room for a goblin to be both "that group of silly looking crunchterbate" and "Mordichai of the MOAB-Column".

Think of the proposed DB as something like this:
  • Americans: Devoted to personal rights; low-level threat; mid-level income; high population; can be found all over the world; sneakers, t-shirt
    • Subgroups:
    • Texans: Fiercely conservative; high-threat; wears cowboy hats, spurs; prefers six-shooters
    • Northern Californians: Fiercely liberal; low-threat; wears tie-dye; charitable
    • Notable characters:
    • John Boehner: Found in Ohio and DC chapters; shoots fire from his eyes; controls vast necromantic network
  • Aboriginal Australians: clan-based; high-level threat; low-income; low population; found only in remote regions of Australia

The idea would be to outline large group parameters so someone could point and say, "Oh, that's an American! I've met them before - they're stupid and hateful, let's roll em! Oh, crap, you didn't tell me she was from Chicago! They're nothing but necromancers and undead up there, run!" Plenty of room for the larger group of "standard" fantasy critters AND your more niche buggers - plus, within each standard group, there is enough space to allow plot to write whatever craziness they can think of. Statting would be left to the discretion of local Plot and Marshalls.

The great advantage to a Monster DB is it binds different chapters together into something more meaningful. Though, I thoroughly agree that local plot has ultimate oversight into how and what should knock on their players' door, each group must acknowledge there is a larger world beyond their Chapter encompassing them.

Plus, with every chapter participating in expansion of the original DB, the world would knit and strengthen. Chapters could quickly and easily incorporate cross-chapter critters and would have a touch-point for talking to other Chapters about cross-over plot. I could write the Washington DC Alliance Chapter, "Hey, that Boehner dude sounds scary! Can he or one of his lts. show up out here on the coast? I think my PCs would really enjoy beating him down." ¡Voila! We've suddenly got a trans-coastal plot in the make!

In its simplest form, this kind of document would encourage discussion; in its most complex, it would build an Alliance World far more intricate and interesting than any single chapter alone could ever dream.
 
Barring the elimination of the mists and local plot discretion to organize local race packets in conjunction with the national ones, I don't believe the Alliance game is a suitable environment to be played as "one world" in the way you want, John. Let Chicago goblins be dumb, smelly, rock-eaters and San Fran goblins be intelligent elemental summoners.

I see such a document going one of two ways - being so limited as to hinder plot teams from being creative of their own cultures ("Dragons eat maidens every week" Alberta - "Hold up, we've had five years of plot that demonstrate that they don't!"), or being so inclusive as to be pointless ("Dragons eat maidens every week, except when they don't."). It works fine in a game with three or four chapters, where variation is limited. Once you start growing beyond that, you get wilder and wilder variation, and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.

If Alliance Florida decided dragons were just big flying lizards (Reign of Fire), Alliance Montana wanted them plentiful and color-coded by alignment for your convenience (Dragonlance), and Alliance Arizona decides that they fly by eating limestone to convert it to hydrogen and sleep on gold because it's soft enough for bedding without being flammable (Flight of Dragons), that's a-ok. If we're gonna bandy about common tropes, let's go with Our Dragons Are Different.
 
There is a part of the MDB that can fulfill that function, the foul folio.

As a plot person, I don't feel constrained by using template monsters. Either I find what I'm what I'm looking for or I don't. If I do, great! Yay, Gnolls work for my plot. If not, then I come up with something myself, such as Golden Jakols- golden dog-like bipeds who have an affinity with the plane of death (or whatever). I can either start with the Gnoll template as a base or completely strike out on my own.

I'm fine with goblins being the same stats from chapter to chapter, however the culture being dictated is more of a concern, imho. When I was on plot in Seattle, goblins were silly comic relief who loved their shiny. San Francisco goblins are not like that at all. At the end of the day though, both base goblins have 8 body. I'm okay with that. If I want to do something different with goblins, that's fine too. Goblin grenadiers do something different and have a tell in their appearance. I've no problem making a necro casting goblin who sports red tattoos or having ice goblins who are warty blue bipeds. A character who is traveling can encounter these and decide if they want to treat them like typical goblins or expect something different. And they can either ask around or go investigate for themselves. I don't see meta-gaming in that.

At the end of the day the MDB is a great tool and absolutely needed for a new chapter and for new plot members. Stating a creature isn't intuitive for all folks.

-Jim
Who is not wearing tie-dye.
 
Back
Top