Over the last ten years since the development of persistent campaign worlds, there has been a drive to make monsters fit into the natural ecology of these settings. I am a big fan of monstrous ecology and making sense in a game world because it helps suspend disbelief but ecology is useless when it comes time to play the game. When I started looking at my holy grail, an “emotional response” from my players, I could not really get anyone to think about what the dragon fed on when not eating adventures. In light of that, I really started looking at why I was doing ecology: to make the monster part of my world, my story, or my adventure to help suspend my player’s disbelief by creating an immersive world.
I ended up coming back to the root of all monsters: MYTHOLOGY. It may be nice to know where the dire beast fits in the scheme of things, but monsters like the hydra, the chimera, and the medusa did not need ecology. They have something more primal, they have a deep and fundamental mythos that players respond to. I saw a correlation for mythology rather than ecology for Agents, Aliens, and even Godzilla.
I found mythology to be more useful and entertaining to read. Too many “ecological” monsters read like an instruction manual. So, out with ecology and in with mythology, simply because mythology is more immediately useful.
There will be GMs that will curse me and say I am leaving out a valuable part of roleplay by ignoring a creature’s background, but allolw mythology to take up the slack and carry a heavier load.
This is largely about campaign design. If a campaign is designed from the top down (the highest CRs are described first, with lower CRs described in descending order) one can decide these issues as matter of campaign design. If a campaign is designed from the bottom up (start with a village, move up to a town, move up to a city; etc...), the campaign decides those issues as a matter of development.
Both methods of campaign design work. The "top-down" approach will readily enable a more "myth-centric" campaign.
Just my perspective....
And a single troll is the mythic creature of the local hamlet, we are talking about an era when news likely does not travel father or faster than a days ride or walk (if you don’t’ have horses in that part of your world). Your mythology would be on a local story-teller’s scale.
That said, I would like to bring up a bit of an argument to this point that has not yet been considered (or so it seems to me.) While what you say would most likely work in most situations and with most groups, what if you have one or more players that want to know about the ecology behind the monster? I don't think it's fair to tell a player to just not think about it if they truly want to know. Also, I think that it is the responsibility of the DM to give them some kind of answer, even if it isn't a perfect one.
I like that you do not seem to be trying to persuade anyone to share your view here. Instead you seem to be telling us what you do in your own campaign and why you choose to do that. I think that this way of presenting things is perfectly in the true spirit of Regdar's Repository and I thank you for it.
That said, I would like to bring up a bit of an argument to this point that has not yet been considered (or so it seems to me.) While what you say would most likely work in most situations and with most groups, what if you have one or more players that want to know about the ecology behind the monster? I don't think it's fair to tell a player to just not think about it if they truly want to know. Also, I think that it is the responsibility of the DM to give them some kind of answer, even if it isn't a perfect one.
You might define a "monster" as something that is not part of the natural order - so its ecology is that it's outside the ecology or simply a disruption to it - a living breathing Exxon Valdez disaster. Other creatures may simply be weird animals/plants or whatever, that do fit into the natural order. You could have both in a campaign world.
I am not saying that ecology cannot not be useful to have I am just saying that when it comes to useful material mythology is more useful in a fantasy game.
My normal answer would be it does not have an ecology it destroys the ecology, in the same way that rogue elephants or a swarm of locusts destroy the ecology they inhabit (the same has been said for humans), once they have destroyed area A they move on to area B.
I am not saying that ecology cannot not be useful to have I am just saying that when it comes to useful material mythology is more useful in a fantasy game.
The way I see it is that what you state above is, in a sense, the ecology of that creature. The fact that it feeds on one place until it no longer can and then moves on seems like a perfectly acceptable story.
As I side note, I agree about humans being this way.
So I can only agree that building monster-dependent ecologies is rather hard. I usually leave the ecology pretty much intact and simply make monsters rare in my campaigns. Some monsters, like Ogres or Goblinoids, pose no problems at all. Some, like Dragons, are meant to totally dominate the area where they live. And some, like Aberrations, are only ever encountered in places that are not very "natural" anyway - namely, dungeons. That way, you can have iconic, mythical creatures (that dwell in iconic, mythical locations, of course), and still leave your ecology pretty much the way you'd expect it to be in our own world.
Mythology and ecology are simply two aspects of the same deal: they correspond to history and geography.
It is certain that a plausible ecology and evolution tree for monsters makes the world more lifelike, despite being rarely actually brought into question by players. It involves however a great deal of work, and the ambitious DM may find himself limited after a while.
Some of the attempts to fit a monster within an ecology are rather laughable, at least while you leaf through three or four MMs, your trusty Fiend Folio, and some other non-core material... I can't remember how many times I have read "this badass is usually on top of the food chain wherever it goes, terrorizing even other large predators..." or something in that vein. Usually this description goes with a CR 7 or 8 monster, often of the Animal or Magical Beast type.
This exactly leads you to the necessity to SELECT among monsters to include into your ecology. Fitting every single creature from the MMs into a plausible ecological system in impossible, especially when these beasts were not designed as members of such a system, but are rather given as optional choices for the DM.
To give an example of an evolution theory, below I present my own interpretation of the evolution of various creatures:
[sblock=My ecology]
- Various animal-like races (catfolk, aaracokra, serpentfolk, minotaurs, serpentfolk) have evolved from animals via natural evolution. Humans are included, having evolved from apes.
- Elves came to the world through portals.
- Dwarves and giants were created by the gods as oposite forces.
- Halflings, grimlocks and similar human-like races evolved from humans.
- Trolls were created by fiends. Orcs and goblinoids evolved from trolls.
- Illithids came from outer space. Aberrations are actually Illithid experiments.
- Magical beasts are normal animals infused with mystical energies, either by design or by chance.
[/sblock]
The question, "Why is it there?" should either have an uninteresting answer, or lead you to more interesting things, such as "the creatures were warped by that evil meteor that fell last winter."
When my players are in the Jungle of Fatal Death, if they are thinking about the ecology of the locations, then I am doing a mighty bad job.
The game is a stage. Even though you know objectively that the set is just painted canvas, you accept the canvas as a stone wall because the stone wall is not important.
I believe such things are rather rare in most D&D groups, but if this becomes the preferred style of play for the group (we always play something like elven rangers :D), ecology becomes even more important than demography.
Seeing it like this, I think mythology is mostly fluff. :D
Breathstealers: better close those windows at night, lest the breathstealers suck your breath out. I'm thinking a shadowy humanoid shape will do.
The key to this kind of design is to think of it from the common point of view. How does this monster kill me and how can I avoid it? It doesn't matter what the monster does the rest of the time.
One of the things I have noticed is that many of the creatures in the monster manuals, particularly some of the creatures based on pre-existing mythological creatures, is that they are presented as being weaker than their "originator". This leads me to believe that while the first example of such a creature may be incredibly disruptive and outside of the ecology, eventually it finds its own niche in the ecology. And once more such creatures appear they begin to prey off each other, creating new ecologies above and beyond the previous.
Hence things like the paragon template in the Epic Level Handbook and reprinted in the SRD. The paragon, the first primal version of the being could very well have been made by a God or by some other set of circumstances but if this creature bred with enough similar creatures its power would become diluted.
Furthermore, I also find that ecology and (by extension) causality help preserve game balance. For example, I'm a Tolkein fan, so as a matter of campaign dynamics (i.e., no impact on player character development), elves are few and (relatively) high-level in my worlds, whereas orcs are plentiful and (generally) unskilled.
Ecologically, this makes sense. Elves have long life spans, so they have time to invest in quality training and equipment. As a matter of ecological balance, they need low survival and/or reproduction rates or they would quickly become the dominant species. Logically that makes each life more important, so more resources are spent to preserve each one. In contrast, short-lived orcs and their dog-eat-dog hierarchy result in lack of social complexity. Physical attributes become everything and resources are not effectively used. Their main logistic strategy is to outbreed competition. Ergo, only a rare few orcs end up with any quality equipment. In a Tolkein-esque world, this adequately explains why the majority of powerful magic items are of elven make. (I'm not trying to digress into an elf vs. orc thread; my example is merely the simplest and most familiar which comes to mind.)
See what this does to game balance? When a species' numbers are adequately accounted for in terms of advantages and disadvantages, those differences make their way into the rules themselves. Elves have long lifespans, specialization and below-average constitution. Orcs have short lifespans, above-average strength and below-average mental attributes. If one had a distinct advantage, it'd inevitably wipe out the other.
Back to the original idea: In the case of unique monsters, none of this needs to be worked out at all. The ecological impact of a unique monster is invariably localized.
You don't destroy the ecosystem, you change it into another ecosystem. If we chop down a rain forest and build a city, we've changed the ecosystem from a forest system to an urban system.
*Takes off ecologist hat*
I like to give these things a quick consideration, but since I'm well aware that I could in no way predict the effect of say even 1 dire wolf on a local ecology, I just come up with a solution that fits my story best. So yeah, I go for the mythology over ecology approach, while trying to have a little bit of a think about ecology every now and then.
Rust Monsters, for Christ's sake (how did they feed before mankind invented iron...?) a
Um, I don't mean to nitpick, but iron is a relatively common base element that appears in nature. People just figured out how to remove it from the ore. Rust monsters probably just dug tunnels around looking for iron ore veins before people started making armor.
Basically all monsters have an origin of some kind other than ecological life, but once they exist and make an impact on the world more of them come into existence.
Some of the other more race-like monsters (goblinoids, ogres) are created races requiring arcane magic to hatch them fully mature (like orcs in LotR). These races live only a single generation since there are no women among them (though half-orc women have allowed some few exceptions in their case). Some are created by accidents (trolls are born when a humanoid drowns in a bog tainted with evil arcane energy).
Some creatures were created from aspects of the gods (Dragons, Giants) and do have ecological niches, but very unusual ones (due to very long life spans they have very low populations).
This leaves a lot of room for creative interpretation. Should an adventure call for a beholder to reproduce, I could create a process in which he infuses part of his magic into the eye of a large creature. The eye becomes infected and tumorous, until it eventually kills the host and pops out into the air as a juvenile beholder, or some such. Basically the question becomes a springboard for an adventure idea.
What is important to me is presenting a world that is believable.
Goblins are in this region why? what do they eat? what do they drink? do they sleep during the day or the night? what do they do between these times? do they migrate with seasons? are they territorial? are they evil/good? are they even with young?
just adding a few details of ecology to encounters now and then adds a sense of reality in an easy way. Goblins just 'walking through the woods' is fine as i am sure they do that a lot, but goblins fishing in a stream using spears, or a deer running almost right into you as its running for its life from a bunch of orcs with bows. A badger leaping out at your feet because its protecting its cubs and you failed to notice it.
It adds options to make a simple encounter different without being more challenging, and may even give options to avoid confrontation as the 'enemy' is preoccupied or with understanding you can see why your attacked, and back away from the badger
While i don't discount mythology, quite the contrary, i always try to make sure something belongs where it does, and if it doesn't... well that makes it even more interesting to the players and possibly an adventure in itself
Regarding depth, take the "Alien" movies. "Alien" was a classic sci-fi horror film, but where to go from there? Sequels featuring "more of the same" usually flop. So, the scriptwriters instead opted to expand the depth by introducing ecological elements, namely, that they breed. Now it's not just a unique creature that kills people and keeps kids up at night, but a species that must be dealt with. The results speak for themselves: "Aliens" is regarded as one of the best sequel movies ever made. The same applies to D&D. An effective way for a DM to one-up a Big Furry Monster encounter is by introducing a population of Big Furry Monsters.
As for suspension of disbelief, this is a "problem" caused by smart players who simply bother to ask, "Why?" Japanese horror recently re-introduced the concept of evil that just is. No ecology, no motive, just a force of pure evil out to destroy everything it can. This remains the exception, not the rule. In most cases, smart players will demand, and deserve, a satisfactory explanation for the way things are, if only to probe for possible solutions. For example, if a player determines that rust monsters infesting a town are after iron and thus seeks out what's drawing them instead of mindlessly attacking the critters, that effort should be rewarded (unless the PC is, say, a low-Wisdom barbarian). If said town is a farming village and there's a mining town down the road with no such problem, the DM had better have a good explanation! Villains can have personal agendas that explain all manner of awkward behavior, but for non-intelligent monsters, the most effective way to justify odd actions is by establishing a connection to an ecological niche. If that is not done and the game falls apart because of it, the DM, not the inquiring player, is at fault (hence "problem" in quotes).
Um, I don't mean to nitpick, but iron is a relatively common base element that appears in nature. People just figured out how to remove it from the ore. Rust monsters probably just dug tunnels around looking for iron ore veins before people started making armor.
Well, Rust Monsters ostensibly feed by turning refined iron, even steel, into rust. This makes sense chemically, since turning iron (Fe) into rust (Fe2O3) produces energy. But iron ore is, chemically, identical to rust. You can't get any more energy out of it by applying more "rusting". Apart from very rare meteorites, there is almost no pure iron in the world that is not manufactured, i. e. refined in a smelting process, reducing Fe2O3 to Fe and CO2 by mixing in ground coal and air at high temperatures.
Rust monsters simply cannot feed in a world without furnaces for ironworking.
So much for ecology.
Mythologically, one might say a god of animal predators wasn't exactly pleased when mankind invented iron:
"They have turned from prey to predator? They will not fear my bears and lions anymore? They have armed themselves with glittering claws of the thrice-accursed substance, and wrapped their fragile bodies in it, to protect their entrails from being ripped out by mine children? I will teach them to fear me again, and run in desperation from my creatures again! For I will create a terror upon this invention! Only rust shall it leave wherever it goes, devouring swords and spears and good armor. And should they dare strike at it with their puny weapons, they shall fall apart as well!" And so the Rust Monster came into being, as revenge of the Beast Lord!
I usually reserve the ecology model for dire animals, some magical beasts, and some monstrous humanoids.
Dire animals and magical beasts are usually incorporated into an ecology by being ultra-advanced members of another species. For example, a dire wolf is a wolf who has bested every hunter for centuries. He is the embodiment of what it means to be a wolf. Somewhere in a deep primeval forest there may be an entire pack of dire wolves.
Um, I don't mean to nitpick, but iron is a relatively common base element that appears in nature. People just figured out how to remove it from the ore. Rust monsters probably just dug tunnels around looking for iron ore veins before people started making armor.
Thankyou. I thought I was going to have to correct him/her.
I always make an attempt to place a sensible ecology in my worlds. For instance, my current world, I threw the entire D&D bestiary away and started re-imaging the monsters from scratch, drawing from mythological sources the initial inspiration.
I find nonsensical ecologies bothersome as a player, and I am the sort of person who will - even if only in passing and even if it has no bearing on the campaign - question any logical inconsistencies in the world. It bugs me like an itch I can't scratch.
So I endeavour to make my world's ecosystems as tight as possible, because even if my players don't care, I feel happier. You will find shed loads of prey creatures on my worlds; wild horses, macrauchenia, wild goats, rabbits; many of my random encounter tables in the past have included decidely noncombat animal encounters.
If I can, I'll attribute the more outlandish things to magical mutation - though if possible I make it natural rather than artificial. I try and 'neaten' things too. I really can't stand what I call the 'messy' creatures and races in particular; on my worlds you'll find only a handful of actual races, and 'subraces' will actually be cultural. So, I endeavour to come up with an explanation or reason why this creature is like this. I avoid - as much as possible - the magical experiment gone ary/made by the gods/some wizard bloke where I can, since it always feels like a cop-out to me if used to explain everything.
For example, when I came to the cockatrice, I thought to myself, "what has feathers and also looks a bit like a lizard? What would a stupid peasent think looked like a coeckrel and a lizard Velocirator!" So, cocktrices became Raptors (who happen to have a similiar feather colouration to some domestic foul) naturally mutated by the world's background magic. By the same token, Roc became Teratorns, Leocrota became Measonyxids and (after a good couple of years thought!) Simurgh became heavy-headed Pterasaurs.
I have spent many hours on this (my bestiary for example, is divided into sections based on kingdom; Amphibians, Birds, Dragons, Mammals, Reptile, Undead, Vermin). It took my quite some thought on previous worlds how to categorise Beholders into thir own taxonomic Kingdom.
I apply the same level of detail everywhere else; I have lost count of the times when I've been quest-writing and stopped for several hours to lay the logical background for a single statement of something world related, like filling out a history of designing the entire lunar cycle.
I have a driving urge to make sure everything is 'right'. I can't not do it, as it just niggles me and drives me up the wall. As another example, my campaign world's history is pretty developed in real-world time, where 300 years a bloody long time, and the entire history of the world, going back to stone age is about the thousand years. It doesn't bother me in the slightest my players will probably never need to know when silk came into use or when alegbra was invented. But it settles me, and I find I can write a much more consistent (and consistency for me is the absolute key to versimilitude) and vibrant world with all that work behind me. And I think my player appreciate that.
the bottom line I guess is that if you want the players want to delve into that level of detail then you have to have a reason for them to do so.
I would also agree in the epic challenge of placing all monsters of all monstrous supplements, magazines, third party sources, splatbooks, internet forums, etc. all intermingling in an ecological or mythological network in a single campaign setting.
In mythology you have the example of the first Arachnid. It's an origin story for a creature that the ancient Greeks must have also pegged out an ecology for them as well in trapping winged insects for food. They also had a myth for the Medusa, but such a creature did not actually exist. In a setting where a Medusa would exist, mythology could explain the origin, but I would think an ecology would be needed to continue the story to determine what the Medusa would eat or hunt, or if they eat, how one makes tools, does the Medusa go on a walkabout to alleviate boredome or does she simply wait for potential heroes to come to her.
My player and I both enjoy having both kinds of background possible to explore.
"Mythology" is not an excuse for creatures just appearing out of thin air. Common ecology is not the only solution for having things make sense.
That all said, sometimes one just wants to kill orcs and take their stuff. There is nothing wrong in that.