Boss Monsters are not just Monsters

[velkymx]

One of the things I’ve always had an issue with in all versions of D&D is the idea that everything is a “Monster”. Many of the monsters in the Monster Manual are unique and would not be encountered more than once in a player’s life time. Bosses should be epic creatures, Smaug the Dragon or Orcus the Demon Prince. These are not stat blocks, these are very special, very powerful and very one-of-a-kind. They should be removed and reframed as NPCs or Monster Bosses, not just XP dumps.

Read the full post at the blog...

[Mint]

"Boss Monsters" are, first of all, a concept that came into being with Video Games. Video Games, of course, came into being after original D&D by a fair amount of time. Also, in original D&D as well as OSR a "stat block", in the sense that it is some sort of inviolable rule, is sort of an alien concept as most everything in the rules are regarded as guidelines and not set-in-stone. Just because something says that a particular monster is rare doesn't mean that in a particular GM's world it can't be unique. As far as that goes I think it fair to say that a great many people who play even modern versions of D&D do a fair amount of bending, twisting, and mutilating of the rules. Last I checked the books themselves still say that the rules are only guidelines. Anyway. Just my thoughts on the matter.

[Woe]

I agree with the OP but tend to take it further: all creatures have a background. All creatures fight to live and oft run away (if they can), ambush, and work situations to their advantage. Dying level 1 creatures might say, "tell Grlak I'm sorry" just to find out later Grlak is nothing more than another level 1 goblin whose spouse was absconded by the victim. My local curate has a gambling addiction; the serving wench pilfers from customers to pay for the illegitimate child of hers and the guard captain; the dwarven smith is really a imperial army officer washout; and so forth. Everyone is unique as long as the PCs take the time to learn it. Obviously when ambushed, nobody will stop to ask who Grlak is... but if they did, even Grlak should be more than a stat block and a XP reward.

[Longman]

One of the things I’ve always had an issue with in all versions of D&D is the idea that everything is a “Monster”.

'NPC Manual' doesn't roll of the tongue nearly as well.

Seriously though ... I've never really had this issue. Clearly, major opponents can be story elements as well as just an excuse for a big fight - - and minor creatures can be this way as well. I always took that for granted.

But sometimes, players just want to kill monsters, and it's good to have some clearly identifiable, uncomplicated monsters for them to deal with. I'd be happy with the odd Grlak style red herring but if every kobold had a story to tell, it could be a bit of a drag.

Good or neutral NPCs is a different matter. I agree with Woe on that. They should always have something going on in their lives, and if players get drawn in by it, you can expand on it.

[Dimirag]

Monsters can be NPC if the GM wants it, and they can be a primary opponent or NPC really easily, but that is pure roleplaying, there is no need to divide a monster into Lesser, Common, Great, Boss and things like that, the books are pure mechanics, and mechanically there is little to no difference between the standard monster and one with a set personality and background.

Some people might want rules on how to "evolve" monsters into more powerful opponents in their books, but, paraphrasing Solomoriah "there's a great value in things not said in the rules".

[Metroknight]

One person's unique monster is another person's cannon fodder. It is up to the individual GM to decide in his game world what should be a unique boss monster and what is a common everyday lawn critter.

The stat blocks given the way they are is one of the most universal methods used to allow the GM to make his individual choices for his individually crafted game.

That's my 2 cp on the matter. Can I have some change back?