Monster Movie Monsters

One of the best parts about Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC) is the way the company approaches monsters.

They don't.

They provide a few sample creatures, but the real treasure is their advice: make monsters unique. They don't mean unique in the ordinary sense. If you have a monster, make it the only one of its type in the world. If it's an ogre terrorizing a village, this is the only ogre in the world. You can have other ogre-like monsters later on, but this is the only one called 'ogre,' it has its own unique traits. Those are the only ones you will ever meet if you have a race of demonic poodle humanoids living in a crashed asteroid. This approach to monster design empowers you to unleash your creativity, giving you the confidence to create monsters that are indeed your own.

We are done shipping monster manuals filled with creatures with stats and standardized stat blocks like they were slices of processed cheese.

The adventures follow this format; for the most part, you won't see rooms filled with orcs and kobolds in the scenario. They develop monsters unique to the adventure, making them fit in with the theme of the madness happening, and you won't see these monsters again in other adventures. Many types of robots exist in some cases, but one "security robot" won't be the same as another adventure's.

So, what does this have to do with GURPS?

Well, ask yourself: Do I need standardized monster blocks? Do "lagoon creatures" need standardized stat blocks to appear in many villages, or are they specific to one adventure and scenario? Are all monsters the same? Are there "fire orcs" that live in volcanoes, and do they even call themselves orcs? Maybe they are unique enough to call themselves magma-brutes, and they never want to be associated with other humanoids, as calling them an orc would be an insult!

And those magma brutes live in this one volcano, this one place, and if they are vanquished, there are no more in the world. As always, other "brute-like" monsters could be elsewhere, like the kelp-bed living fish-person beasts, but they aren't "orcs" and are nothing like magma brutes.

And the players will never see the same monster twice. In the D&D and Pathfinder model, this is done by choosing one type of low-level monster, another type of mid-level, and another high-level so you get the illusion of not seeing repeats. Still, in other groups and in the next playthrough, everything becomes less unique and more like you are eating at a fast-food restaurant. You know what to expect. You optimize your character build to fight what you know. The mystery and thrill are gone.

And if one thing is true about every monster in a "monster manual," they eventually become gentrified, made cute, and presented as a character option or a pet. Orcs? Kobolds? Mind Flayers? Intellect devourers? Mimics? Dragons? Demons? I can identify multiple first- and third-party books from publishers that have done this time after time.

Also, you run into the danger of nostalgia taking over your game. If you want nostalgia, are aware you are using it, and want that dopamine hit, then great! If you aren't aware you are doing it, you may put the past on a pedestal just "for the feels." You aren't expressing your ideas and feelings through a game; you are repeating someone else's and expecting to feel something that does not come from you.

Once they become standardized in a monster book, they are no longer monsters.

Just like processed cheese isn't cheese.

Besides, aren't monsters supposed to be scary and mysterious? Monster movies in the 1950s often relied on the beast in the "movie of the week" as something nobody had seen before. The Alien movie from the 1970s is the best modern example; the films after that first never lived up to the shock of seeing the original (Aliens was good, but nothing tops the original).

This is practical, old-time, classic Hollywood "crowd pleaser" advice. How can you thrill an audience if the monster in your movie is something the kids just saw a few weeks ago? You can't do giant ants again! What about an enormous killer moth? A killer leech! The subterranean burrow beast! The killer bats! The cactus creeper! The robot from planet X-51! The talking giant spider with the human face on its back!

Or we can use "orcs" again.

So, when discussing conversions to GURPS, understand what you are doing. Do you agree with the "bestiary" model of monster design where there are standardized forms, like video-game or MMO monsters? Or do you believe every monster should be unique and different? And if you are wasting months of effort converting hundreds of monsters into GURPS, you need to ask yourself, is this how I see my fantasy world?

Random monster stat blocks? Who cares? They could be anything since all monsters aren't the same! One cave crawler species could be immune to a fire, while others could be weak. This is true in the real world of animals and insects; depending on where something comes from will influence its abilities, special attacks, and natural immunities.

In a way, "making it all up" as you need them is the right way to go.

And when you are converting an entire setting into GURPS, like Pathfinder, you need to ask yourself, what do I like about the setting? If you convert everything "just to have it," you are likely better off playing the original game. Pathfinder's Golarion is a tricky conversion since this theme park setting is based on the game's rules and constructs. The kingdoms are these "adventure land" zones, which are micro-settings, often designed to host an adventure path from level one to the mid-teens. They are very structured, rely on the progression of challenges, and each adventure path is almost like a "play it once" video game release.

Be careful with "high stuff" games; these are systems lock-in designs. They give you so much to overwhelm you, keep you from playing other games, and make you feel you have a lot of stuff here. This is a classic quality-over-quantity thing; I would rather have a smaller list of high-quality, well-designed, and exciting monsters over lists with many repeats where the only difference between monsters is a special attack and a few hit dice. There are a few B/X games where you could list a half-dozen monsters under one entry and never know the difference.

A setting stronger in characters and stories is more straightforward to convert since your focus is different. With the old Forgotten Realms setting, if all your source material consisted of the TSR novels before Wizards of the Coast took over, that is a vast library of conversion content. Let's say your game begins after that last TSR novel ends. Your focus is different, and you aren't relying on "false content" - adventures and monster stat books. Since your focus is on characters and stories, this will automatically play better in GURPS, where the game shines.

Why are we focusing on numbers and ratings when we could be focused on stories and characters?

Isn't "what we come here for" the characters, conflicts, and stories in those books? Why are we worried about "how many hit dice the owlbear has" when that is secondary and only serves as opposition and conflict. Those owlbear stats could be anything, even "just use a bear's stats, " which would serve the same purpose and be far less work. Plus, you may want to give this owlbear a "stunning screech" attack, which no other owlbear has in any other game, and make it memorable.

Standardized "books of monsters" only kill your imagination and take the fun out of the game. You put that owlbear screech attack in 5E, and I bet half the players will pull out their monster manuals and point to the entry, saying "nuh-uh" and blaming you for being a terrible DM and leading to the deaths of half of their precious characters in that encounter.

How did we get here?

Is this a place we want to be?

Take a step back and ask yourself what the goal of your conversion is. You are on the right track if it is closer to stories and characters. If you are just doing a conversion for "numbers and stat blocks," you must ask yourself, "What am I doing?"