Tricking players knowledge in favour of characters knowledge

[abk108]

This came to mind while i was running D&D last night, and my characters knew everything about the monster i pitched against them. I know DCCRPG is going to solve this by not having standard monsters, but i guess i'd like to share this idea cos it might be useful for everyone playing an RPG, and finding that expert players know too much about monsters.

I think that taking the crunch of a standard monster entry and applying it with total new fluff, so that it seems a brand new monster, could work.

If you say "you meet this large humanoid , half man half bull with large horns and a waraxe in his hands" everyone might go "duh, minotaur". What if you use the same stats of a minotaur, but describe "this is some kind of coriaceous humanoid, covered in thick chitine with spikes that look like spears out of a shield formation. He charges hiding his head behind his shoulder scales to protect it". I think they would be thrown of by this, but the GM didnt need to put any effort in designing monster stats and so on.

What do you people think!?

[ThickSkullAdv]

I like how DCC is encouraging the "describe the monster, don't tell what it is" mentality. I think that's just a great DM'ing practice in general. I think where the problem comes in is when the player's start metagaming with something like "Oh, skeletons, we need to immediately put away our slashing weapons as they only do half damage."

I think it's those special attacks and special defenses that make monsters, well, special. In my new games I'm trying to be a bit more creative without bogging down the game play.

All that said, I agree with your post--even some minor modifications to standard flavor text can effectively create all new monsters.

[GnomeBoy]

I've been doing this more and more over the last four years. I know what sort of creature I want, and then I find stats in the MM that gets close. Add and/or subtract an ability or two to bring it inline with my concept, and it's ready to roll and 'never seen before'! Saves needing more Manuals, since I can even re-use the same stats again and again, by just tweaking them...

[finarvyn]

Part of my solution is not to limit myself to a single monster book. My stack of books on my GM table includes the Monster Manual from 2E AD&D, Monsters & Treasure from C&C, and the Rules Cyclopedia from BECMI D&D. I figure that if I'm off a little on AC or HD, who cares. Also, I'm a big fan of tweaking monsters occasionally just to throw a glitch into the plans of my players.

On the other hand, I can see in certain campaigns where characters would have had prior knowledge of some creatures. Think no one in Middle-earth knew what orcs were? If you use standard creatures, it's okay for players to have some outside knowledge.

[GnomeBoy]

On the other hand, I can see in certain campaigns where characters would have had prior knowledge of some creatures. Think no one in Middle-earth knew what orcs were? If you use standard creatures, it's okay for players to have some outside knowledge.

Agreed. Still, it is fun if/when they go "oh, it's more orcs. ho-hum." and then get their posteriors handed to them, because these weren't the orcs they were expecting...

I have had (very occasionally) someone complain that "I'm not running them right" and then I show them one of the first things written in the 3e MM, about what's given just being the most common forms of these creatures, but that other variations exist... Can't recall if earlier editions had that sort of thing or not spelled out...

[jmucchiello]

The best thing you can do once you discover this DMing secret is go whole hog with it. Nothing is what is seems to be. The fun part is once you get it out of your system and you send a "normal" owlbear against the party it will scare them. "Does it have deadray eyebeams?" "Maybe it randomly teleports its opponents!"

What do you people think!?

I think the loss of the published Dragon magazine 3-4 years ago was great blow to Dungeon Mastering. Why? Because what you describe is probably an idea in over a dozen Dragon articles appearing once every 2-3 years since 1976 when Dragon was first published. The AD&D 1e Monster Manual contains the first hint of this idea: The Gas Spore. It looks like a Beholder. But it's a 1 hp bomb that is designed to get parties to lose lots of spells for no reason.

So to answer your question: Yes. Do this. It's as old as RPGs and an essential tool in the DMs arsenal.

[abk108]

LOL the Gas Spore, yes i recall seeing it in the AD&D mm.

[finarvyn]

Of course, TSR was also known for coming up with absurd monsters just to annoy players.

Remember the monster that looks like a treasure chest? Or the one that looks like a carpet? Or the one that looks like the ceiling? Having a hard time thinking of these things evolving naturally in any universe, but they certainly made dungeons less boring.

[abk108]

Not mentioning the one looking like a cut down tree with a white bunny on top................ ;D

[GnomeBoy]

Of course, TSR was also known for coming up with absurd monsters just to annoy players.

Remember the monster that looks like a treasure chest? Or the one that looks like a carpet? Or the one that looks like the ceiling? Having a hard time thinking of these things evolving naturally in any universe, but they certainly made dungeons less boring.

Who said evolution had anything to do with it...?

*gets back to adding pinches of powdered eye of newt into burbling black cauldron*

[jmucchiello]

Of course, TSR was also known for coming up with absurd monsters just to annoy players.

Well, not exactly. It wasn't a TSR mandate. Most of these monsters were invented in Dragon magazine/Strategic Review and Gary just incorporated them into the Monster Manual. The rust monster has a propeller on its tail because someone had a weird plastic toy that became the rust monster and it had a propeller on the tail.

Remember the monster that looks like a treasure chest? Mimic (MM)
Or the one that looks like a carpet? Trapper (MM)
Or the one that looks like the ceiling? Piercer (MM, later Dark Mantle in 3e implying evolution works)
Not mentioning the one looking like a cut down tree with a white bunny on top................ Wolf-in-Sheep's-Clothing (MM2)

You left out the one that looks like a cloak.

[GnomeBoy]

I seem to remember one that looked like a small human, but with pointy ears. I'm sure it never caught on...

Also, the Piercer was a stalactite-looking thing, wasn't it? I can remember the illustration of it next to the illustration of an antelope/bird thing...

[phg]

Or the one that looks like the ceiling? Piercer

Wasn't it the "Lurker" or "Lurker Above" or something like that? Piercer was a stalactite, but the Lurker just looked like, well... a ceiling.

[jmucchiello]

Or the one that looks like the ceiling? Piercer

Wasn't it the "Lurker" or "Lurker Above" or something like that? Piercer was a stalactite, but the Lurker just looked like, well... a ceiling.

Yes, there is also the Lurker Above, a ceiling clinging manta ray. I went with the piercer though because it in 3e they updated the piercer with the dark mantle. In addition to falling on you, the dark mantle can create darkness, adding to the fun. People always complained that the piercer was just a falling pit trap. Once you were hit by the piercer, it was helpless. The dark mantle, with its darkness ability has a chance to scurry away if it doesn't kill its prey. Of course, the roper is the stalagmite version of the same idea, and far nastier.

Never saw a Lurker Above in play. But the Mimic, Piercer, Trapper, and Cloaker all appeared in modules. I don't remember a module with the lurker above. But then I didn't own every module.

[DCCfan]

I still love springing the Mimic on thieves who get to cocky.