P&P v2 [Was: Re: Idea bounce]

[Larry D. Hols]

Hallo,

>|| myth and a fine mix as such. Someone not only compiled a list of
>faerry atle
>|| creatures, but studied different mythologies and created a very
>diversified
>|| list.
>
>It IS quite a hodgepodge.  And frankly, we still need more :)
>Seriously, I have at times taken the encounter rolled and tweaked it a
>little (I once took a Great Ape encounter and described them as big evil
>bears.  I think I tweaked the stats a little, and modified the behavior
>a tad, but it worked okay)

        This is true.  I created several creatures to fit into my
campaigns.  They got ported to campaigns using other rules sytems, too.  I
would like a well-developed bestiary in the core rules set.  I don't want
the xD&D monster-a-minute hodge podge, but I do see a need for greater
variety in the P&P set.

>|| So giving the playable races recognizable names will help players
>imagine
>|| how they look and behave, using known myths and tales and not having
>to
>|| resort to the rule books for a description. On the other hand,
>changing the
>|| creatures names will make them instantly unrecognizable and keep the
>world
>|| exciting and new. And the names given are good choices for that. It
>is my
>|| opinion that both names should be used in a basic system, with the
>generic
>|| names to help new players and game masters get a feeling for the
>world and
>|| the characters.

        Many games have taken the approach of using staock fantasy races
and turning them into "bionic races"--the "we can make him better than
before" from the _Six Million Dollar Man_ television show.  The result is a
generic elf race similar to xD&D's elves, but with more innate powers and
neato gizmos.  That is something I want to avoid.
        I want a different take on elves completely.  Yes, they look like
elves.  Yes, the other races probably call them elves.  They don't have to
act like stock fantasy elves, though--they can be unique.  They can be new
and refreshing.  They can set a new standard in elves.
        The races will be referred to in both fashions in the rules.  Most
often they will be called by the proper name, because experienced gamers
will take one look and say "Those are elves" (or dwarves, etc.) but wonder
why they aren't all hugging trees or whatever.

>I could cope with the "mutating" of existing creatures in Book 3 to
>eliminate the "obvious" commonly known creatures (i.e. Change the
>"Unicorn" into a deer-like form, change the description a bit, tweak the
>stats, alter the motivation a tad, give it a new name (probably elder
>based).  The exotic and the unknown are much more interesting (IMHO)
>than the heavily overused generic creatures.  We can still have some

        The challenge is to take stock issues and make them unique and
exciting.  Yes, the game draws from varied sources.  However, just because
Nordic lore was used as a source doesn't mean that the creature in question
should appear exactly as that lore says.  The creatures in P&P should be
P&P creatures, first and foremost, regardless of the background they came
from.

LArry