In the final analysis, any fantasy role-playing game aims at the encounter between man and "monster". Chivalry & Sorcery monsters might appear to be rather limited in numbers to those players conditioned to the veritable avalanche of dungeon and wilderness nasties that can be found in the prozines and apazines of fantasy gaming and in other fantasy role games. However, it should be remembered that C & S was designed initially as a fantasy simulation set in a middle ages environment, and the monsters chosen for it were those typical of such a setting.

That does not mean that other monsters are automatically excluded from a C & S campaign. Quite the contrary. The fantasy world created by a Game Master and his friends need not be a historical mediaeval world at all. Remember, "feudalism" is a type of social/political/economic ordering of society and can apply to Anyplace and Anywhen. The range of possible worlds of fantasy that can be characterized by one sort of feudalism or another is large. Such worlds are limited only by the imaginations and organizational skills of those designing them.

Within a fantasy world, there could be a place for almost any type of creature. But - and it is a very big BUT - the monsters should have their PLACE. The chance of encountering a given monster should be directly related to its nature and the appropriateness of his presence in a particular region. Some monster types, and especially the "exotic" varieties created out of whole cloth by players instead of being drawn from actual myth and legend, ought to be strictly limited both in numbers and in the locations in which they might be encountered.

There are players who regard the number of monster types as somehow being a measure of the quality of a campaign. That is a mistaken assumption.

Numbers in themselves never amount to "better". There are hundreds of different monsters now available. It is rare that any one Game Master will have the time, inclination, or ability to use them all in an effective manner. Considering that every mistake, every failure to exploit the full potentials of a given monster type results in player victories and experience bonuses, quantity is simply not quality. It is, at best, only a novelty that quickly wears off. At its worst, it is bad campaigning. No gimmick monster, however "cute" or "clever" it may be, will ever replace imaginative and skillful Game Mastering.

What is perhaps of greatest value are the possibilities for selecting specific monsters from the plethora of beasties available. Each Game Master has his favorite monsters, as do the players. Selection of monsters for a campaign is a personal matter. It cannot be otherwise for each campaign will bear the mark of the Game Master conducting it. I, myself, will have nothing to do with monsters that violate my personal sense of what is authentic and reasonable. The monsters I design and use have to meet my standards of believability and good play balance. To a degree, my preferences are a matter of personal prejudice, and I prefer authentic monsters adapted honestly and fairly accurately from actual myth and legend, or from good works of fantasy fiction.

I do not condemn monsters designed outside the bounds of tradition. Umber Hulks have always occupied a special place in my mean little Game Master's heart. But I do reject many of the poorly conceived "monsters" arbitrarily designed and introduced into many campaigns without any real thought as to their impact on play balance, not to mention more fundamental considerations which shall be raised shortly. I do not accept any defense of such monsters on the grounds that "it's only a game". Nor do I accept the argument that just because the designers of one game or another put in or excluded a monster that I either have to use it or refrain from using it. There is no "one true way" in such matters except sweet reason and developing fair and balanced play.

• BASIC STANDARDS OF MONSTER DESIGN
  When choosing monsters to adapt to a fantasy campaign, one has several sources. First, they may be adapted directly from actual myths and legends. Second, they may be drawn from works of fantasy fiction. Third, they can be created entirely as the product of a designer's imagination.

  When monsters are based upon "real" models, models drawn from legend or fiction, a designer is under an obligation to present the monster as it actually appears in the sources. The legends and fictional works provide stories which can be used to gauge the physical and other characteristics and abilities of various monsters. Such stories are valuable guides to design.

  Legendary monsters and those of fantasy fiction should be drawn true to their sources because nothing grates on the nerves of someone familiar with the "genuine article" more than seeing plain violence done to a monster because the designer of that creature was ignorant of the sources or else thought that he could "improve" on the original model.

  Let me give several examples. Hydras (there was really only one) are giant, serpent-like creatures with three heads. According to the Greek legend in which it appears, every time that one head was severed from the body, two would grow instantly in its place. I cannot comprehend the reasoning that converted this very satisfactory, very deadly creature into a dinosaur-like monster. The term "Hydra" is very specific in meaning. If one is going to name a monster "Hydra" present the Hydra that Hercules fought, not a totally different creature which bears little or no resemblance to the original. People, like me, who are familiar with the legends will become confused by the indefensible liberties taken. Again, the Gorgons were three sisters with snakes in their hair, one of which was the famous Medusa slain by Perseus. I don't understand how they could be confused with the brazen bulls which Jason yoked to plow a field, one of the tasks set for him to win the Golden Fleece!

  Such incredible and insensitive, heavy-handed and ill-informed botch-ups abound in the realm of fantasy role-gaming. If one is going to be "original", he should at least have the grace to keep his hands off genuine monsters and invent ones that do not steal their names. As a student of legendary lore and as an educator, I resent the propagation of ignorance.

  Dragons are a prime case in point. As I pointed out in C & S, Dragons were mediaeval symbols of great destructive force - almost irresistible in their power. Chinese Dragons, if one is going to turn to that other great source of Dragon Lore, were sometimes very benevolent, but again represented great and almost irresistible force. To reduce them to 40 or 50 hit point worms is plain sacrilege! It misrepresents and degrades one of the mightiest monsters to fly through the pages of world myth and legend. But in how many campaigns is dragonslaying taken for granted because the dragons are "pushovers"? Try out a C & S Old Dragon sometimes. You'll find out why instant promotion and national honours are accorded a dragon slayer! If your character survives the encounter, that is.

  Trolls are my first and favorite love amongst the monsters. C & S Water Trolls are the epitome of trolldom and are modeled after those of Nordic Legend and saga. In particular, the Anglo-Saxon Beowulf influenced the game monster for it presents a very satisfying and complete rendering of such creatures in the person of Grendel and his mother, the dread Sea Hag. They appear as tall, man-shaped beings of great strength and fearsome power. Thus Water Trolls can reach heights of 8' and weights of 800 Dr. (more if armor is worn, which some intelligent trolls did on occasion). Their strength is legendary so they are given 4x their weight in carrying capacity. Their bodies could absorb incredible amounts of damage, yielding l25 hit points, and could quickly regenerate (+3 points/melee round). Their armour class is very high, for trolls have scaly, flinty, or rubbery hides that resist ordinary weapons (1/2 damage and no critical hits). With their mass they were able to bash and batter their way through a room full of armed warriors, single out a victim, and carry him off with ease. Creatures of darkness, they possess night vision and detest the light of day, but only in Tolkien are they turned to stone by daylight! In battle, their armaments and prowess are formidable. An Old Water Troll in C & S can deliver 157.5 points of damage per melee turn (assuming all blows strike home) in 9 blows at +45% hit probability, their large claws tearing through armour as if it were cardboard. This is only damage caused by their claws; bites are an added bonus, while "hugs" can produce still additional damage. More than 200 points of damage could be caused in a single round of melee if the troll landed every blow. Lest anyone think this is extreme, remember that trolls had a reputation for being able to rip a warrior's head off with a single blow, and two trolls in Beowulf terrorized the entire Danish nation. Nor are they stupid; many trolls have an intelligence that is truly fiendish in its cleverness. Nor will trolls - especially water Trolls - ignore the use of weapons, which permits them to do even more damage. In keeping with the legends, they dislike fire intensely and can be seriously injured by it - the only edge that mortal men have when dealing with such beings.

  Trolls, in short, are not "pussycats" to be used for combat practice by low level characters.

  The guidelines used for legendary beasties are equally applicable for those monsters drawn from fantasy fiction. Be true to the actual monster.

• NATURAL LAW

  No matter how "fantastic" the setting, the basic laws of the universe should apply.

  This fact about the nature of the universe - any universe - has been all too often lost on many game designers and players alike at one time or another. Part of the problem is that many players themselves are still acquiring a working knowledge of basic physics, chemistry, and biology - as well as any other relevant science. There will be someone out there ready and eager to interject at this point that "it's only a game". I agree, but I will remind him that role games necessarily and inevitably simulate environments. Players have been too thoroughly conditioned by their own life experiences and have acquired enough knowledge about what happens in their own world to make setting it aside far too difficult. It is too much to expect of players to demand that they accept an arbitrary universe conceived by the Game Master which has natural laws too far removed from those of our real world. Water flows downhill, not up. Rocks do not hang suspended in midair (unless comprised of ferrous material and buoyed up by an electromagnetic field). Living creatures can be damaged and killed by physical agencies. These are facts of science. Why should it be suddenly different in a "fantasy" world?

  A Game Master bent on violating natural laws should be required to present detailed explanations of the "laws" of his universe which conflict with those we know prior to playing in his world. Any surprises in this area are simply inexcusable.

  Biological science should be our general guide when designing "natural" monsters - creatures of the animal and plant kingdom. Any "natural" monster that seriously violates biological "truth" is a poorly designed monster and should be thrown out with the bathwater. Also, if the monster is "alive" and has a physical body, it can be and is fully subject to physical laws.

  Here is a practical application of these principles. Supposing that a Giant Slug is biologically possible, we would do well to begin with an overgrown version of the common garden variety. A "giant" slug would be "sluggish" in its movements and would not properly be capable of fast or even moderately fast speeds, even when in a hurry, because of the nature of its locomotive apparatus and its mass. It would have a soft, almost pulpy body, and thus also a very low armour class. Because that body is resilient, it would absorb damage from club and mace-like weapons with ease (1/2 or 1/4 damage at best); but edged or pointed weapons would readily open up its body and allow the escape of internal fluids- Because it is a low order creature, it would possess the vitality of such primitive life forms and would therefore have a body high in hit points. Covered with a slimy secretion, it would likely be resistant to but not proof against fire. Certainly it would instinctively dislike heat, just as real slugs do. A large bag of salt would drive it crazy if broken across its body. Its eyesight would be limited, but it could sense vibrations through the ground (caused by walking or other movement). It would not possess devastating weapons besides an acidic mouth capable of engulfing its prey. Of course, some compromises could be made on this last point, permitting it to spit an acid secretion for 20 or 30 feet. Its intelligence, however, would be excruciatingly low, and its general manner would be pacifistic unless attacked or hungry. Certainly it will be easily confused, and one might readily distract it by throwing it food. With a very low-grade intelligence, magical commands might have to be limited to simple terms, like "Stop!" or "Go Away!". Illusions would instantly be believed by such a creature.

  The real danger of a Giant Slug is bumping into it - literally. In a confined space, it could accidentally knock a person down and crush him under its bulk. Hardly exciting, but that's the way it would really be.

  Some of the "giant worms" are really nothing more than magnified and modified insects on the centipede model. Others are more "worm-like". The characteristic mark of such creatures in fantasy campaigns is their singularly carnivorous nature. Indeed, a whole host of dungeon crawlies is possible, but some self-restraint is advised on the part of monster designers. Such creatures would tend to be low-grade types, ruled by instinct. With such creatures, "out of sight" means "out of mind". Their powers of "sticktoitivity" are strictly limited. Thus they amount to natural subterranean hazards. They would be hard to kill because of their low-level natures, but never would they be immune to natural agencies. Using real-life models in nature would yield the best results. There are enough genuine horrors in nature to provide scads of "crawlies" for any campaign. Tough, but stupid!

  The same is true of "giant insects". These will tend to be of a carnivorous nature and will be tenacious in the extreme. Often they will be hard-shelled, yielding a high armour class. They possess considerable vitality. Some, like ants, will be capable of fairly good speeds. However, once again, their intelligences will be low-grade and they will be easily distracted. Model them after their real counterparts. Fire will be devastatingly effective, and even an outthrust torch will cause them to hesitate in the attack.

  Higher order animals can be designed from their natural counterparts. Giant versions are merely bigger and equipped with larger natural armaments.

  Biological and zoological science will be the source of all relevant factors that shape such monsters. Magnification of size might be "impossible" in scientific terms, but that is a concession which can be readily supported in fantasy gaming. Incredible armaments and invulnerability to natural forces (sharp weapons, fire, cold, blocks of stone dropped on them, etc.) are indefensible, however.

  Various amoebic life forms can be postulated - giant one-celled creatures. But the actual natures of such creatures should not run to silly prescriptions requiring the use of such and such a spell, etc., to stop them because they are mysteriously (and inexplicably) "invulnerable" to fire or lightning or whatever. Certainly an amoebic creature will find its being attacked by edged or mace-like weapons "amusing" because its protoplasmic simplicity prevents damage from such attacks. One could stipulate, however, that a hit in the nucleus of a super-sized one-celled creature was a "mortal blow". In any event, heat and cold would have devastating effects on them all. Lightning is an electrical discharge producing blast and burn, as well as electric shock, all of which would cause havoc to a simple one-celled organism. With a primitive biological make-up and a totally instinctive directive force impelling it, it would definitely obey instinct and avoid "hot" and "cold" places and things!

  All manner of oozes, jellies, puddings, and the like are exceedingly primitive life forms. Their sensory apparatus is limited in range and information-gathering power. Their modes of attack are essentially singular: engulf the food and digest it with powerful acids. They will move slowly, definitely slower than a man, and their determination to pursue prey that has slipped outside of sensory range is nil. One would almost have to walk into the reach of such creatures to be in trouble. Above all, they literally don't have the "brains" to concentrate on more than one task or victim at a time. They certainly would not "stalk" their prey or be attracted to it from a great distance.

  Moulds and slimes are easily enough dealt with. These are passive monsters that merely "lurk" in wait for "food" td blunder into them. And I mean into them! They would not be able to cause instant rotting or desiccation. Such fates are purely the constructs of uncontrolled imagination and strain biological truth. More likely, disturbing a mould could release spores or vapours (secretions from slimes) which paralyze or put a victim to sleep, causing him to fall into the mass of the mould or slime to be digested slowly at leisure. Being of the plant world, such "monsters" would be highly vulnerable to fire and probably cold as well.

  Natural law, then, dictates that monsters correspond to biological and zoological insights. This is not a limitation, but rather a guide which permits a monster designer to check out his latest brilliant idea against what is even vaguely possible and reasonable. He can gauge the nature of the creature and its abilities in the light of real models. If it is too wild, too far out, it should either be discarded or toned down.

• LAWS OF MAGICK

  No creature, natural or fantastical, shall violate the basic laws of Magick.

  P.E.I. Bonewits, a genuine mage and scholar of the occult, has commented in his recent book on Authentic Thaumaturgy (Chaosium, 1978) that few game designers and players alike have any real grasp of what magick is all about. Indeed, it seems quite clear from the way magick has been handled by some that it is assumed to be an EXCUSE that justifies whatever they like. They couldn't be more wrong.

  Just because "fantasy" games are being played does not provide any justification to violate the laws by which the universe functions. If Magick is part of the fantasy universe - and we all assume that it is - then Magick will follow definite and discernable laws. All physical objects, all living creatures, and all creatures of magical or supernatural nature or origin will be subject to the laws of Magick.

  Thus it is that some Undead, like zombies, are highly resistant to most physical agencies. That is a function of their "undead" natures. Swords and spears simply do not damage dead flesh the way they do living tissue. Fire is nasty, but not effective against rotting flesh as it is against living, feeling skin. But, partaking of the supernatural and the magical, Undead are vulnerable to theurgic and thaumaturgic magick. It cannot be otherwise. One cannot have it both ways. If a being is, by some accident of nature or some magical design, immune to ordinary fire, it will NOT be immune to magical fire. Magick Fire is the very quintessence of the mana itself, the magical forces that pervade the universe. Saying that any being is immune to Magick Fire because the being is "magical" is missing the entire idea of what Magick is all about. And that is why Undead fear fire; it is magical force, the mana, the one thing that can always consume and destroy them utterly.

  Magical creatures are never immune to Magick. Some are more resistant and are harder to target than are others, but once targeted they may be more vulnerable to magical operations and effects than are ordinary beings. That is the reason that even the mightiest Demon can be "bound" or the most terrifying Undead can be ordered hence or a malevolent Spirit can be exorcised. Once the mage or cleric "has their range", magical and supernatural creatures have real problems.

  This issue has to be raised because uncontrolled and uninformed imaginations have churned out many "clever" monsters that twist and distort the truth of such matters to the point that pure invention knows no reasonable bounds. The characteristics of magical beings must be accounted for in a rational and correct explanation of why the monster is the way it is. If it transcends the laws of the physical and biological universe, it still must answer to the laws of Magick.

• THE LAW OF COMMON SENSE

  As long as one sticks closely to models drawn from authentic sources, few real problems will arise. The legendary or fantasy fiction sources provide more than enough information by which the capabilities of a monster can be determined. Even better, they justify the very existence of the monster and permit a defensible introduction of the monster into a campaign. When pushed to the wall, one can always "appeal to authority" and pull the reference text down from the shelf to prove that you knew what you were doing, that such a beastie is not "incredible" or "impossible" or "ridiculous".

  The moment one departs from the "known" monsters as they are described and sustained by the literature of myth, legend, and fantasy, the chance of real trouble arises. Often, it is due to plain ignorance or insensitivity.

  P.E.I. Bonewits, in a general condemnation of the tendency of some game designers and players to create and use supernatural beings of a high order (Gods and Demi-Gods in particular), has observed that such people do not comprehend the nature of the forces with which they are dealing. I join in his view. Bonewits, for example, points out the possibility in some games of a mortal actually defeating and slaying a deity like Odin Allfather. Odin was perhaps one of the most powerful beings in Western European myth, and even hinting at his possible demise at the hands of a puny mortal is, in Bonewits' terms, downright "sacrilegious". It is, I might add, downright impossible if one remains at all true to the very nature of Odin as the Nordics conceived him. Odin is destined to die under the fangs of the Fenris Wolf at the Ragnarok. To permit any other possibility is to do damnable violence to a great and honoured tradition. It totally misses the whole point! Indeed, it exhibits extreme insensitivity to or else ignorance of the materials of Nordic myth and legend. To call a "game-construct" ODIN and not provide him with several hundred thousand hit points, incredible weapon handling capabilities (with attendant damage to his victims), and the equivalent of a 1000 PMFs of magick capability is to be totally lacking in authenticity.

  If one insists upon introducing high level deities in a campaign, do it right!

  My advice is to stick with low order demons and spirits that are comprehensible and in line with the capabilities of the poor mortals who must cope with them. Messing around with direct and personal interventions by real Gods introduces no end of complexity. It demands comprehensive rules to govern their use by Game Masters and players alike. Worse, it demands a total drawing up of battlelines on the cosmic scale. What are the relationships of the various gods to one another? How do deities of different religions interact? It is a Pandora's Box, a can of worms that best be left unopened. Besides, if a high order Deity did appear, what makes players think He would want to intervene. The ways and purposes of the Gods are mysterious, and they tend, like Crom, to appear, observe, and depart without doing anything for or to those who summon them. Mortal affairs are left for mortals to resolve. As Bonewits comments, it is often because the Gods do not give to men what they want when they want it that the impatient amongst us turn to demonic forces to grant their requests.

  Turning from Gods to monsters in general, I submit that the use of random dice to determine such vital factors as body hit points is fraught with problems. I once rolled a 12 HP troll with random dice - sheer impossibility if one is going to be true to the legends! It is for that reason that C & S monsters were assigned more fixed values. Variations of several hundred percent in the capacity of different monsters of the same type to take damage simply don't make sense. The greater the number of hit dice used, the larger the variation; eight dice, for example, produces an 800% range between lowest and highest values with D8.

  I am not saying that there is anything wrong with randomizing a monster's body points with hit dice; I am suggesting that some definite minimum values should be assigned which prevent ridiculously low HP values.

  Common sense should also be exercised before one begins to develop a new monster or else to adopt someone else's construct. Ask yourself, WHY IS THIS NEEDED? There should be a good reason, and I don't mean one like "Well, it's a neat idea" or "I have to get something to take on that tough dungeon party" or "I need something new". A Game Master's first and most important asset is his imagination and skill at handling the resources already available to him.

  If you are creating a monster from legend, be sure to read the legend first. Others have, and if you are too far wrong, your "cleverness" will come back to haunt you.

  If you are departing from "known" monsters of legend and fiction, realize from the start that design becomes fraught with problems and perils. For when we come to pure invention of monsters that were never contained in any previous source, our enthusiasm sometimes overwhelms all good sense and judgment. We create "impossible" beings charged with all sorts of "cute" magical powers and talents and/or with physical abilities and fighting prowess that is enough to turn the hair of a Demon pure white. Often, we ignore the realities of Magick, if we ever were aware of them in the first place.

  Remember, you might not be aware of such things, but there always is someone else who is. If he knows his stuff, he won't be impressed or amused at all. Let's be honest. We all indulge in monster design because it feeds our egos and gives us a "nice" feeling when we see our creations in print in a prozine or apazine or even a game or game supplement. But when we go "public", even in our own private gaming groups, we run the risk of being fools, too. That isn't what we want, so let's avoid it.

  As a common sense rule, monsters should be less intelligent and less magically capable than are men. There are exceptions, of course, but they are few. The majority are not the equals of man, in the final analysis. This is the thread that runs through the length and breadth of the legends and also most fantasy novels. To endow more than a few monster types with high levels of intelligence and magical proficiency invites the inevitable question, "Why haven't they taken over the world, then?".

  The foregoing question was asked in all seriousness. We talk about setting up universes but when we do establish our world, what assumptions do we make? If it is populated by huge numbers of monsters, many of which appear with no more reason than they were rolled up on a random table of appearance, we have a problem. One cannot respond with trite and flippant retorts like, "It's just a game, haven't I told you that already!" Whenever the "game" involves a world larger than a "dungeon", the problem of maintaining the status quo is highly relevant. The whole story of the Lord of the Ring, for example, turns upon the fact that the monsters of the world are massing under one leader and have the numbers and military strength to overwhelm their Human, Elvish, and Dwarvish opponents once Sauron obtains his Ring and neutralizes the magicks of his enemies.

  Of course, one might answer, "Well, the dungeon is enchanted, see, so they can't get out". Why not? Who was so powerful that he possessed super-powerful magicks (not contained in any set of rules published) mighty and enduring enough to keep them there for all time? Even if such spells exist, what happens when intruders disturb the binding spells? And make no mistake intrusion will disturb them.

  Moreover, monsters are not limited to dungeons. In any fantasy campaign worth mentioning, adventures occur in the wide world outside the dungeons, with plenty of "encounters" with the most wondrous of strange beasts. Not every monster is confined to dungeons.

  The point is that EVERY TIME A NEW MONSTER IS INTRODUCED INTO A CAMPAIGN, A RISK OCCURS THAT THE WHOLE BALANCE OF PLAY WILL BE DISTURBED. This doesn't mean that new monsters are unwelcome. It means that one has to be careful when a new monster is conceived. Game systems are not designed to absorb an infinite number of variations, whatever the claims of the designers. Sooner or later an overload will occur, and a campaign is in big trouble.

• THE LAW OF PREDATION

  What do monsters do? How do they survive between adventurers for lunch? Remember, if it is alive, it has to eat. This places monsters right inside the whole food chain. In a sense, I am still talking about Natural Law.

  Every creature has its predator. There must be predation if monsters of a carnivorous nature are to survive. This is especially true in dungeons, where the vast majority of monsters are anything except the normal life forms found in nature. But if predation is necessary, how does one account for the prolific numbers of monsters encountered in the dungeons designed by most Game Masters? Further, how does one explain the tendency of such monsters to cooperate in hunting down adventurers? There will be obvious animosities between the monsters because they use each other for food! Who is whose predator in the world of monsters.

  Even supernatural creatures will have their natural enemies. Nature has a way of balancing the numbers of the many species that exist in the world. By assigning predatory monsters to each monster type, a balance is reached. Besides, it can be fun - a new dimension in fantasy gaming. It often generates the most unlikely alliances against a common foe.

• THE LAW OF THE ACHILLES HEEL

  No being is without its weakness. This is especially true of monsters. Each has some signal failing, some chink in its armour, that permits the knowledgeable man to defeat it. Monsters not having a weakness are not true monsters. They are game-constructs designed by the Game Master to kill off characters without affording them a reasonable chance. Thus the mighty dragon has a soft spot right over the heart.

  Often, the most powerful monsters will have a "bane" existing somewhere in the world, a magical weapon or device which will surely slay them.

• THE LAW OF LOCATIONS

  Does it make sense to find beings, whose natural environment is in the woodlands or plains, in a dungeon as well? Not likely. Water Trolls, for instance, tend to live in underground caves with outlets into streams or rivers. They are, in effect, nocturnal outdoors creatures. Rarely would they be found in dark, damp dungeons far beneath the Earth. It's "not their bag". Wolves might make their lairs in an earth den, but their natural environment is in the woods. And so on. When stocking one's world, such characteristics of monsters should be taken into account. The entire world could contain a vast number of different types of monsters. But every kind of monster is not found everywhere - not, that is, unless the Game Master is using a universal encounter system that assumes a universal mix of monsters everywhere on the planet.

• THE LAW OF EXCEPTIONAL MONSTERS

  Exceptional monsters may appear from time to time. These exceed the usual parameters for a particular monster type. For example, in my own Wolf Hills dwells the incomparable El Lobo, the leader of a pack of dire wolves. He rates at a body of 75, with 500 Dr. weight, % Hit +40, Dodge -35%. His MLB3 fangs deliver 5xWDF, with +5 bites. His intelligence is a very shrewd and cunning 19, with wisdom 20, so he recognizes traps instantly for what they are. He is a veritable demon of the wilderland and makes war on his enemies with an almost human ferocity. Fortunately, there is only one of him, although I have made provision for one cub of his to have his general characteristics should he be slain.

  Again, Arrgh Rufhluk, a very old and wily Water Troll, has been running a successful toll bridge for decades. He has a chain hauberk fashioned for him by the renegade Dwarvish armourer Albrecht. Imagine the surprise on the faces of stalwart fighters when they cleave through that armoured coat only to be told that a second roll is needed to penetrate the equally armoured hide of the troll! After all, penetrating class 8 chain mail does not constitute breaking the skin underneath when that skin is also class 8.

  Such exceptions do not violate any rules so long as they are kept to a reasonable minimum and do not exaggerate the capabilities of a monster to an unnatural degree. A heavier body, more hit points, greater speed, higher hit probabilities, more blows/melee round, etc., than the average can all be factors to consider for exceptional monsters.

• DESIGNING THE MONSTER

  Whether one is designing an entirely new monster never before conceived or is just adapting one taken from legend, fiction, or another game, a general assessment must be prepared. This will list all your impressions and notions about the monster, and it will become the guide for developing the monster's profile. The following factors will be considered:

  1. General Configuration: The over-all shape of a creature will affect many of its characteristics. For example, if it is bipedal, it will possess certain advantages in combat because it is free to use its upper limbs. But it would probably lose out on movement if it is particularly humanoid in shape, a configuration not designed for high speeds. A short, thick neck would restrict head movement, a feature important both for purposes of observation and for effective use of fangs.
  2. Height & Weight: In the light of the monster's general configuration, height and weight can readily be arrived at. These two factors are significant in deciding upon the agility, carrying capacity, and combat effectiveness of the creature (remember, C & S combat systems stress the effects of mass in close combat).
  3. Strength & Constitution: Also growing out of the monster's general configuration, these factors largely determine the brute force and the stamina of the monster. Strength has an important effect on the WDF multiplier and the number of blows a monster can strike in a melee turn. Constitution reflects both the resistance of the monster to the shock of injury and its staying power in combat or in long distance movement. It can also have a bearing on the number of blows that can be struck.
  4. Carrying Capacity: The ability of a monster to bear burdens is often important. Its size, strength, and constitution will all determine its carrying capacity. As a rule, the bigger and stronger it is, the more it can carry. Creatures of weak constitution might be reduced accordingly, despite size; while flying creatures would have fairly severe restrictions placed on loads carried in flight (for good aerodynamic reasons).
  5. Intelligence & Wisdom: These factors are really the most significant of all. Monsters with limited mental capacity tend to act instinctively far more than they do with clear and reasoned deliberation. Game Masters too often make the mistake of playing beasts as reasoning beings. A beast (which can be a pretty exotic "monster", not just an animal) is never the equal of a highly intelligent creature when it comes to the choice of tactics or any other course of action, for that matter. Mental capacity also affects fighting capabilities, although some beasts can show considerable cunning in a battle to the death. When it comes to magical powers, mental capacity is vital; there should be virtually no serious magical effects possible to creatures of low mentality. Magick is not something that can be handled with a flip of the random dice. At best, some beasts might possess "natural talents" in the area of Detection, Communication, or Transportation. Only the real heavyweights (always rare as species or as individuals) might have greater powers.
  6. Dexterity: The agility of a creature is largely determined by its general configuration and the environment for which its shape is best suited, Men, for example, are highly agile and can dodge with far greater ease than a bull can, especially in a charge. It's a question of size and physical make-up. Birds are incredibly agile in the air but can only be described as pitifully clumsy on the ground - with the exception of those avians who have given up flight for a life on the ground. And so on. Also, if a monster is equipped with hand-like appendages, it might be able to employ weapons - but rarely if ever with the skill of men.
  7. Body & Fatigue Levels: These factors, of course, reflect the general configuration of the creature, size, strength, and constitution. They are also determined, in part, by the legends or fictional stories from which a monster is abstracted.
  8. Movement: Once again reflecting general configuration, the speed of a monster will be determined by its locomotive appendages more than any other factor, although strength, constitution, dexterity and weight may individually or collectively have a major part to play here. As a rule, compare creatures to known types, particularly those of the animal kingdom, and use the known creatures as models.
  9. Armour Class: The general impression one has of a creature will determine its armour class. However, the heavier the armour in most instances, the slower and less dexterous the monster will be. There are exceptions, but usually armour must make concessions in the way of speed and/or agility (dodge, for example, could be lower for armoured types). Most beasts would fall into the 0 to 4 armour classes. Rarely will armour of a natural sort be found over class 5 or 6.
  10. Natural Armaments: The weapons with which Nature (or the meddling of eugenics-prone Magick Users) has provided a monster will be of exceedingly great significance to the place a monster has in a campaign. The more "exotic" the armaments become, the less often the creature should be encountered. For example, acid-spitting, poison-gas emitting, fire-breathing, and other such weaponry are highly uncommon. Most typical are fangs/talons and claws/beaks. Some creatures may also possess "unpleasant" odors (like skunks) or poison fangs or spines. The exact rating of such natural weapons will be possible by studying the Naturally Armed Monster matrix (C & S, p. 57) and deciding which will be most appropriate to the monster as it is conceived.
  11. Fighting Ability: The WDF multipliers chosen for the natural armaments, % hit bonuses, % parry bonuses (if any), % dodge bonuses, and other such factors will be determined by a general assessment of what all of the above factors really mean. To a large degree, a fair bit of trial and error is required to at once represent the monster as it should be (true to the sources) and yet avoid play imbalances.
  12. Special Features: As hinted at earlier, some monsters may have special powers. Those of high mental ability might have spell-casting powders of some note, provided that those powers are reasonable and in keeping with the nature of the creature. Such beings tend to be members of a race rather than just a species of wandering monster. A few beasts might have special talents. Such natural abilities should be few in number and not many species should have them. Nightvision is typical of nocturnal and subterranean monsters. Keen eyesight is typical of creatures of the plains and the air. Keen hearing, acute sense of smell, the ability to move in silence, the ability to freeze and blend in with the surroundings, all these and many other natural abilities can be given to monsters.

I have been asked by a number of players how to adapt monsters from other games to C & S. Before embarking on an explanation of such a task, I would first stress that C & S combat and Magick systems differ considerably from those of other games. Indeed, a veritable void of difference exists in some respects; and direct comparisons of abilities, combat or magical, often become so difficult that one might as well design a new creature. This will become clearer when I show how to convert an Umber Hulk, one of my favorite D & D monsters.

We are told that the Umber Hulk is large and barrel-like in form, generally humanoid but much more squat and massive. It is capable of ripping its way through rock at an incredible rate with its large claws, arguing for immense strength. Because of the configuration of the creature, which does not allow for a mobile head and neck, I would not grant it any bonuses for biting unless a victim was conveyed bodily to the mouth of the creature by its claws. The jaws, despite their formidable appearance, would not be overly powerful because of the tendency of the monster to depend upon its claws (an "evolutionary" factor). Since it is capable of tunneling quickly, I would assign it several additional blows with its claws and give them a high damage multiplier. At the same time, it is cumbersome from its description and likely has little agility or speed. Dodging by such a creature would be a joke. Parrying ability with its claws would be limited. As for the body itself, it would be fairly well armoured, capable of taking considerable punishment, and heavy. The monster would also possess Nightvision, being a subterranean creature. Its sense of hearing I would rate as very low, probably equivalent to that of Lower Undead (C & S, p. 107).

The Umber Hulk, by reason of its brute nature (and personal preference) I rate as having low intelligence and wisdom, probably 1-6 on a scale of 20. It is "instinctive" in its habits and behaviors, probably very dogged in its persistence to "dig out" prey once it has found it but likely too stupid and too ill-equipped with sense of smell or hearing or sight to track prey that has fled.

Clearly, the monster that is going to emerge from such an interpretation will be an Umber Hulk in name only. The monster necessarily undergoes significant changes in conversion: