Monsters in fantasy settings

[Sovard]

Indeed.

One of the most memorable role-playing settings was Dark Sun. It mostly contained a fresh look on all walks of life. God I love Dark Sun. All time favorite RPG setting. Up close is Legend of the Five Rings. Such great background and political struggles going on.

It is important for something to be fleshed out as a living, breathing creature. It hasn't survived this long by just mindlessly throwing itself at anything that walks by. I know of a MUD that does this. When you break it down the races are generic (canine, bat, giant, whatever), but they ALL have wonderfully rich histories and intricacies. They had religious beliefs, moral and ethical concerns (and routines), and most of all, language. Not all of these must be present, but in their absence it also explains their position (no community? nomadic? etc.)

It really is up to the writers, developers, and designers to properly convey these things.

 

[LCJr.]

Looks like everyone pretty much agrees for once. If your going to have monsters make them "believable" within the setting.

It'd be nice to see animals behave like animals for a change too. There isn't single documented case of a wolf attacking a human but in every fantasy game they attack on sight. Same with bears, tigers, snakes, etc... not every dangerous animal goes berserk the moment it sees a human. Most animals will avoid you given the chance. A simple way of doing might be to give each animal a "Fight or Flee" percentage. Making it so critter A runs away 99% of the time would make for a real surprise that 1% they attack.

My other big annoyance is loot. Why and how do some of the staple fantasy creatures carry gold coin and other goodies? For intelligent creatures usable items make sense but then again who's to say a greenskin would value the same thing as a human would? For animals or animal-like monsters have some that harvestable parts like skins or organs. Ideally requiring learning a skill like skinning geckos in FO2 or properly skinning an animal in the real world.

 

[RGE]

Humans are the best monsters, but a few non-human monsters works for me. What really works is monsters that no one knows much about, and which may require special methods to kill. Like a werewolf or a vampire, but without an established mythos for how such creatures could be dealt with. Then the PC would have to research the monsters themselves, perhaps by investigating previous encounters by others, or listen to ancient tales, or experiment with different tactics (this is where followers might come in handy - send them forth with the latest invention and see how they fare). Monsters who just keel over from the same type of weapons/tactics that the PC use against all other enemies are kind of boring.

 

[Volourn]

I love monsters. Anyone who doesn't shouldn't be playing role-playing games - espicially fantasy ones, and that btw, includes FO. Long live monsters! Let them live so I can kill them! And, interact with them! They make the genre fantatsic. I don't care if a game has lots of them. There is no such thing as 'overusing' monsters. There is such a thing as misusing them, however. If used intelligently, and fitting the setting as well as the story; monsters can only add to the game.

GO MONSTERS GO!

 

[LlamaGod]

I liked how monsters were done in Gothic, where they had degrees of believable threat.

So the NPCs didnt go 'watch the fuck out for orcs' for no reason, Orcs were humans, but dumber and stronger and based around fighting and thus can kick your sorry ass.

It's good for humanoid monsters to be variations on humans and stuff and for animalistic ones to act like animals

 

[crufty]

Overall though, the more monsters the better. Nobody ever said "zzz. another new monster. boooooring." Might and Magic was fun in its day, and it was little more than kill random monster-get loot-get skill. What made it fun was all the monsters.

Monster placement counts too. If a game has plot, I dislike random monsters w/ninja-monkey style leveling in places I've been before -- ie any Final Fantasy game.

When I get close to the end game, and I go into a cave that had hundreds of goblns when I started, I don't want to run into 2 goblins and a green dragon. I want to face the entire clan of goblins, and mow them all down, or make peace, or convince them to join my cause, or whatever. Sometimes I think designers use monsters as a way to make sure the player is capable of taking on the bad guy and less as a plot device. The plot should lead the player to leveling, not vice-versa (ideally). That said, not all of the plot has to be 100% deep and engaging. For example, in Morrowing, sometimes it was fun encountering a random tomb, going in there, and laying the smackdown on some skeletons. I think NWN had a simlar side-quest as well.

 

[Atrokkus]

Stick with the Gothic formula: place monsters without any adaptation to player's level. Say, right from the start the player can encounter a beast that he will be able to kill only in mid-end game, and vice-versa. There shouldn't be those linear "skill-path" monster encounters, like in most games - they make the game predictable.

 

[Vault Dweller]

First, enemies (there are very few monsters in the game) are not tied to PC level. Second, you won't be able to reach the gold-like status so even guards from the starting town would still be a challenge to you.

 

[Atrokkus]

That's good to hear.

 

[Twinfalls]

You will never be uber!!??

This game is seriously promising.

Re monsters, I can only re-iterate the suggestion of not putting them in a vacuum. Clever AI like Gothic whereby you can watch them sleep, hunt and eat etc is probably too involved to implement. But dialogue can work wonders, too. A character saying "I was watching a Trawler the other day - funny thing, it actually plays around with its prey before eating it", etc, before you ever meet such a thing, may get the player to impute behaviour and atmosphere that isn't graphically implemented.

So the more background and context for monsters, the better - 'humanise' them, for lack of a better term....

 

[Vault Dweller]

You will never be uber!!??

This game is seriously promising.

Thanks.

Re monsters, I can only re-iterate the suggestion of not putting them in a vacuum. So the more background and context for monsters, the better - 'humanise' them, for lack of a better term....

There are very few "monsters" in the game. Very, VERY few. Why? Because it doesn't make sense to have towns surrounded by aggressive wildlife - it's not that kind of game, and because most monsters are boring and are there for you to level up and get some loot. Like I said earlier: "Every fantasy game (that I can think of at the moment) was loaded with monsters. After awhile it feels generic and boring. There is no sense of awe, like "holy fuck! it's a monster, some sorta creature I tells ya". Instead we have "Oh, a monster. Finally. I wonder what it would drop."

Those "monsters" that are in are definitely not in a vacuum. Anyway, now would be a good time to ask that question again:

What do you think of monsters in fantasy settings? Do you expect to see, fight, deal with monsters in fantasy games? What are your thoughts on humans only or mostly humans (my game) fantasy settings? What are the pros and cons in your opinions? What monsters, if any, are must have in a fantasy game?

 

[Twinfalls]

Oh, I wasn't suggesting there should be lots of monsters.

To answer your questions, I do generally expect to see monsters in a fantasy setting - but very few can be perfectly fine. One or two monster encounters in the entire game could be enough, if they're given plenty of background and build-up. If they are not presented as hurdles to be fought, then they obviously need some other key role.

Humans-only gives the advantage of reinforcing a believable, realistic world. The obvious disadvantage is losing that 'other worldliness' that non-humans provide, which may have to be made up for in other ways.

There are no 'must have monsters' in a fantasy game, and asking that is almost a rhetorical way of pointing out that imagination and novelty should be paramount in thinking up creatures, especially in this day and age.

 

[Vault Dweller]

To answer your questions, I do generally expect to see monsters in a fantasy setting

Why? Just curious to see your reasons.

Humans-only gives the advantage of reinforcing a believable, realistic world. The obvious disadvantage is losing that 'other worldliness' that non-humans provide, which may have to be made up for in other ways.

Can you be more specific here as well?

 

[Atrokkus]

Personally, I see no solid distinction between humans and monsters. I mean, you could exlude monsters altogether, and it would still be a fantasy, because it still might contain something extaordinary, alternative world, etc.
Plus, what is a monster, generally? Something like a mutant, some unique and purely-agressive specie?
But orcs, for insatnce, are not always called monsters. Maybe it's all in the head? ^_^ That is, if it's intelligent and has a society of the likes of it, then it is no longer a monster?

Anyways, it's your call. It's your game, you create the world. I don't care if thera are classic monsters or not.

 

[Twinfalls]

Well.... by 'monsters' I take it you mean all non-human NPCs.

It's not that I think fantasy=non humans. My favourite fantasy novel, 'Titus Groan', features only human characters (though the humans present are all, without fail, extremely unusual and occasionally so grotesque as to be quasi-monstrous).

It's more an assumption that it would much harder to do away with them in the context of a game. Titus Groan features no non-humans, no magic, indeed very little overt trappings of the fantasy genre. Yet it is still undeniably 'fantasy'. It achieves this by using some basics - the setting is a giant castle, time-period is unspecified medieval, but also, as a novel, it uses this unique type of brilliant descriptive prose to convey a fantastical atmosphere - which you can't replace your graphics with. No game-world can ever flesh out a 'fantasy' flavour the way a novel can, you can not compete with the imagination that the well written word compels.

In keeping magic and monsters out of a fantasy game you may end up with a medieval adventure - no bad thing, but if fantasy is what you want...

On top of that, a novel does not depend on conflict situations to the extent a game does. So it's just a question of whether you are making it too hard to keep the game fresh through all its twists and turns.

Unless you are going for a 'pure' type of experience and non-humans will clash with this vision, then the question should be: If you have magic, why not have (some) monsters? They provide an opportunity to exercise the imagination and create new game situations and atmosphere - weird sounds in the night, etc.

Having said all that, by God, what we all really want is something unusual. If we want monsters just because we expect to see them, then heck, do something different!

Non-humans and 'realism' - I'm not sure. I think back to the opening phase of Gothic, where you're in this brutal, gritty all-human camp, and you're working your way up. The lack of non-humans in that camp reinforced the oppressive realism of the npc behaviour, I felt.

'Other-worldliness'. I assume this is something you want, as it is a fantasy game. I personally think this is really, really important. I guess many fantasy games use 'monsters' as a crutch to make up for a lack of imaginative 'other worldliness' created in other ways.

The obvious method: Give the graphics a unique twist wherever possible. I think of the skyline in the game 'Thief'. The weird skewing it had gave a whole lot of 'other worldliness'.

But I'd really recommend looking at the type of writing used. A loss for the TES games was the little bits of descriptive prose sprinkled here and there for atmosphere.

Check out the novels of Lord Dunsany, eg King of Elfland's Daughter. Excerpt:

"Go forth," he said, "before these days of mine are over, and therefore go in haste, and go from here eastwards and pass the fields we know, till you see the lands that clearly pertain to faery; and cross their boundary, which is made of twilight, and come to that palace that is only told of in song."

It might be worthwhile to make mere descriptions more prosaic in this manner.

Other things - outright weirdness that we don't see in our world. Strange, unexplained events. I remember a weird bug in Ultima IX whereby a child floated past in the middle of the night. I first thought it was deliberate - it was very atmospheric. Weird is good - go crazy.

I'm curious though - why should our expectations regarding the presence of monsters matter? Its your vision, being true to it is the most important thing, I would have thought...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Unless you are going for a 'pure' type of experience and non-humans will clash with this vision, then the question should be: If you have magic, why not have (some) monsters? They provide an opportunity to exercise the imagination and create new game situations and atmosphere - weird sounds in the night, etc.

I don't have magic. Magic is an equivalent of technology in AoD. It was. There are few mages left in what used to be the Empire, and they are merely apprentices to those who were before them. Anyway, the presence of magic in the setting serves a certain role and so does the presence of those few non-human characters that are in. As for anything else, I'm simply not sure. "Why not have some monsters" is hardly a reason.

Having said that, monsters are a question of preference. I prefer to have less, while someone may prefer to see something non-human lurking in the shadows. That's why I'm asking.

Non-humans and 'realism' - I'm not sure. I think back to the opening phase of Gothic, where you're in this brutal, gritty all-human camp, and you're working your way up. The lack of non-humans in that camp reinforced the oppressive realism of the npc behaviour, I felt.

I agree with that. In fact, those human enemies were much more tougher and more interesting than all those dragons or the sleeper in the end. Imo, of course. Defeating that guy near the new "old camp" in Gothic 2 was more immersive than killing orc #35.

I'm curious though - why should our expectations regarding the presence of monsters matter? Its your vision, being true to it is the most important thing, I would have thought...

My vision is the setting, story, and gameplay mechanics. Having 8 weapon classes or 9 or 7, or having a bit more monsters vs a bit less is irrelevant. That could be up to those who'd play the game.

 

[Niektory]

I suppose by monsters you mean magical creatures? I think there shouldn't be many of them. By having less you'll make the important ones more special. That's why I like low magic settings, magic doesn't have that special and mysterious feeling anymore when it's too common. And by surprising the player you keep him interested.

 

[Heirophant]

As a boy I remember reading Bulfinch's Mythology and being struck by tale of Perseus. To this day, the word 'monster' immediately calls to mind the image of the Chimaera. Not A Chimaera, like the generic image that shows up in many level-building games, but a truly terrible beast that defies all explanation. Such a monster doesn't have a place in the natural order. It is the wholly unnatural existence that makes it so terrifying. The Chimaera exists fundamentally to kill and incite terror. It has no other real purpose. For Perseus, the quest to defeat the monster is no mean task. Indeed, it comprises of many other difficult feats, such as the bridling of Pegasus. No sword or spear could slay the monster, so Perseus uses the creature's own weapon against it. He thrusts a lance with a lead tip into the Chimaera's mouth, where the fiery breath melts it. No fantasy game I've ever played featured such a wicked monster.

 

[Psilon]

Um, wasn't Bellerophon the slayer of Chimera?

Perseus was notable for defeating Medusa, and he rescued Andromeda from Cetus, but I don't think he did anything against the Chimera.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You are correct, sir. Bellerophon was the one who killed that beast.

 

[RGE]

I learned that from Mission: Impossible II, starring Juan Cruz (or someone a lot like him).

 

[Crnobog]

I'd rather see a pure all-human setting, with low magic and low combat. It just gets so boring when on your way from A to B you get to slaughter an entire goblin tribe, an orc war party, an undead army of an evil necromancer and an elder dragon god.
I mean, what kind of monster it is, when all it takes to defeat it is to click on it frantically and drink a bottle of red liquid every 10 seconds. How come there are any monsters left in that kind of fantasy world where one man can exterminate an entire species. It's illogical and more importanty, boring.

So, in my opinion, for monster to be actually scary and, well, monstrous one would have to:
- make it (nigh)udefeatable in normal combat, otherwise someone would have killed it before you.
- make it appear intelligent - it could try to lure the player into it's cave, it could use stealth and camouflage to hunt it's victims, etc.
- make it appear to be something else than it really is - a mimic posing as a shiny precious item, waiting a couple of hours patiently in your backpack and jumping on you when you sleep or in the middle of combat would be ten times scarier than a pack of goblins mindlessly charging at you.
- remember, some of nature's most dangerous predators use mimcry, deception and poison. As a general rule, the predators are usually quick, stealthy and quiet, the big, fat and loud ones are usually herbivores.

Alternatively, if one's going for a strictly no-monster setting, one could:
- make the monsters actually be: humans in disguise (13th warrior), trained animals in disguise, unknown species of animals, automatons
- make the monsters a coverup for some illegal/immoral plan (for example, a smuggling ring spreading rumors of monsters lurking in the woods to prevent people from snooping around)

That's it for now, gotta go, I'll post some more laters

 

[Nick]

Great post, Crnobog. And though VD has already written the story, I hope that he'll take your ideas into consideration.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'd rather see a pure all-human setting, with low magic and low combat. It just gets so boring when on your way from A to B you get to slaughter an entire goblin tribe, an orc war party, an undead army of an evil necromancer and an elder dragon god.

Agree

So, in my opinion, for monster to be actually scary and, well, monstrous one would have to:
- make it (nigh)udefeatable in normal combat, otherwise someone would have killed it before you.
- make it appear intelligent - it could try to lure the player into it's cave, it could use stealth and camouflage to hunt it's victims, etc.

That's the route we've taken

 

[Hazelnut]

- make the monsters a coverup for some illegal/immoral plan (for example, a smuggling ring spreading rumors of monsters lurking in the woods to prevent people from snooping around)

This made me think of Scooby Doo

"..those meddling kids."