Section8
Cipher
I think monsters are one of the key elements in a fantasy setting, along with magic, and occasionally other more interesting features, such as the emergence of technology in Arcanum's game world. Without some fantastic elements, you're in the realm of something like historic fiction. Teudogar or Mount & Blade are good examples.
Not necessarily. Monsters certainly have their place, but I really go for "shades of grey" in my games. Monsters are usually unquestionably aggressive and serve a single purpose. Kinda dull, but then again most fantasy games present humans in much the same way.
It certainly doesn't detract from a game, it provides a setting that steers away from the cliche of Tolkienesque high fantasy, and provides a more effective platform for a wider range of problem solving. Humans can be dealt with in more ways than with the swing of a blade. It sets the stage for a more political climate than the "age old enemy" cliche.
None at all. The only bold assertion I'd make regarding monsters is that there's so much room for imaginings beyond orcs and goblins.
--
Now, onto the answers to questions that weren't asked. More important than the physical appearance of a monster, is the underlying nature of the beast. All too often, the only behaviour of a monster is to kill the player.
It's been brought up earlier in the thread, and discussed with regard to Gothic, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents on more "complex" behaviours. I believe that behavioural complexity is overthought in many cases, and simplicity would better serve to keep behaviour interesting.
As always, the throwback to chess, where the behaviours of each piece can be defined in very simple terms, and yet the interplay between the pieces is incredibly complex. All pieces have their strengths and weaknesses, which are inherited by the limitations on movement.
There's no good reason why a range of simple behaviours can't be applied to more complex systems with similar results. The funny thing is, it's usually action games that are streets ahead in terms of tactical combat nuances in their gameplay, usually when it comes to bosses.
But you can take a step up on your design pyramid and add in little nuances across a range of behaviours rather than purely combat actions. In the case of this discussion, the most logical example would be "What motivates a monster to attack a player?" and just of the top of my head:
* Player is bleeding
* Player is shiny
* Player wears fur
* Player has <food> in their inventory
* Player enters monster's territory
* Player looks small enough to be prey (crouched, prone, not upright)
* Player makes threatening actions (weapon drawn, vocal noises, etc)
* Player shows fear (turns back)
...and of course, "Player" in those examples should be applied to any critters/NPCs in the game.
So for a fairly cheap implementation there's a broad scope of emergent situations. There's also a backbone for scripting some non-combat solutions - "The reason your villagers keep getting attacked in the forest is because you wear bloody furs, dumbass. So I'm not going to kill the wolves. Now I'm going to go mack on this druid chick, because CRPG romance subplots are the very definition of fulfilment."
Or whatever. Maybe I'm just a sucker for "Monster Lore" skills.
