Of late I feel like Indiana Jones in raiders of the lost arc [sub]all should know this reference .. if not.. get to it man!![/sub]
by this I mean that I am running with all haste from a giant boulder.
That boulder is a combination of the need of a giant list of spells to be used by 7 spell caster classes (and 2 semi spellcasters) in my game.
My goal is over 100 spells --- anyone who has played oldschool (and new I suppose) D&D knows that this could be quite the undertaking.
But that is an unavoidable (as far as I am concerned) obstacle.
The other portion of my Harrison Ford-like dash is comprised of my need for monsters and creatures and NPCs and all that come with them.

As large a task as spells is, I feel more burdened by the thought of a creating monster stats - paying an artist to draw them all coming up with fighting styles and special moves.

So driven by I guess Laziness, I came up with an idea to include in the core rules. In the GM section.

I'd like to know if there is any games out there with this format or any ideas that you guys can offer that would strengthen the effectiveness of this solution.

[font=century gothic]Since I intend for my game to be somewhat modular [sub]meaning I want it to be used for any fantasy setting - based on other games or novels or whatever[/sub] Monsters would vary according to that setting. So instead of creating hundreds of things to fight/interact with. I thought about making a monster building guide [sub]replace monster with npc or whatever[/sub] .. perhaps the guide would allow players to either choose among a list of
Moves and stats and difficulty to beat in combat (verbal and physical) along with special moves and what not -- and have a sheet that can be photocopied to accompany this guide and the GM can of course build a "Monster Manual" By saving his/her creations.
[/font]

Thoughts? Suggestions? References to other systems that have something like this?

I think this is a great idea and a much better one than creating a big monster list. If the guidelines are easy or quick enough, it shouldn't be a lot more work than taking the notes needed in a game like D&D to be ready to run a combat encounter, plus it adds droves of versatility. I would suggest doing something similar with spells. Also, you could let the work develop through the course of play testing. I mean, if you look at the list of spells in 3e D&D, you'd be looking at a list that developed over decades of actual play and with contributions from hundreds and hundreds of authors, just make what you need now and let it grow, or create a modular system for spell creation and let the individual players do the work. Either has its advantages to the list upfront approach and would definitely lighten your load.

I've done this in a couple of games I've made, and GURPS does it by making monster creation identical to character creation, which I'm convinced is a solid way of doing it. That said, GURPS and its supplements contain virtually no pre-made monsters, and it's an endless source of strife amongst many of its players, both actual and potential. So, whatever you do, it's a good idea to include a significant number of pre-made spells and monsters, along with their construction frameworks.

Would monster creation be fundamentally different from character creation? If so, you may have problems on your hands. I'd recommend basing monster creation off character creation, and then grafting in mechanisms you need to encompass the full scope of monsterdom. This can also be a great way to get insight into your character creation process and how to improve, balance, and streamline it.

A way I've done spells in the past is to draw up a fistful of basic things that magic is capable of. Can it create force? Can it morph elements? Can it manipulate matter? If so, how difficult or easy is it? From there, you can assemble spells and easily determine their strength relative to each other, or modify these strengths based on restrictions like, I dunno, "Must be cast in blood", or "Can only be used by [x] class". And once you're done with that, you can toss the spell-building framework in the DM's guide and let them make their own spells.

Hope this helps!

I've got to disagree with Garbados about having their be a strong relationship between monster and character creation. Many games have come to the conclusion that its easier to get monsters and npcs to do what they should (in terms of what the group wants them to do in the context of the story) by having them have their own unique relationship to the rules. The Dragonlance SAGA game and the latest (4th) edition of D&D come to mind as some solid examples that fall well within the field of 'traditional' roleplaying games. Though I do think its ultimately a question of expectations, a game like GURPS, for instance, is very interested in closely modeling reality or 'fantasy' reality in a consistent and thorough way, and often does this at the expense of expedient game play or more dramatic-arc oriented approaches.

Now that I think about what I actually said. I find that I misspoke (miss-typed?) I should not have included NPCs in the mix there.
Let me define NPC by what I know it to be. This is someone that the Players could potentially speak with. This could one of the playable races [sub]sidenote here: I thoroughly abhor all the halfy races (half orge? - half dragon?--ugh) that poured out of 3.0/3.5 D&D and they will not be standard characters in my core rules. -- can't stop people though.. But they have to come up with homebrew rules for them[/sub] or possibly player classes. (in this case I would make the NPCs just like I would a Player Character) or it could just be a shop owner or head priest or tavern winch and all that.

Monsters I would want to come together A lot quicker. I readily admit that characters in my game take a while to conjure. Everything from how well you fight to how well you defend or how well you cast spell to have well you bake, make camp, speak, dance and everything else stems from The Core 11
These are your abilities (or so they are often known) though I call them characteristics.
So first you have to roll up those then combined them and divide them a bunch of ways to get your character ready for play.
So I have my very best friend who just happens to be a computer programmer write a little program that will create a "Classed" NPC in just 4 clicks of the mouse. AWESOME right?
but what about those monsters/creatures?

Stumble into a pack of centaur who don't like you much? Need to talk/fight it out?
I'd like to create a quick and easy system to create playable stats for these guys.
So heres what I am thinking.

You have several charts or lists that have what a strong bonus is for different things.
[sub](note: nearly all things in my game are based on a roll of a d20 +a -large- bonus) [/sub]
So when designing a monster you would think of an idea. then answer some questions based on a 1-20 scale .. (1 being weakest)
I'll go with one I made for my last AD&D game.

[font=ariel]Graesha. Small, quick demon-like creatures with claws for tearing and teeth that cause bad infection
the only way to kill them is to stab out their glowing blue eyes.

So answering the questions for creating this little beasty.
danger level? 10 [sub]because of not knowing their weakness outright[/sub]
ability to strike- 8 [sub](fast little buggers are good at getting in and out again)[/sub]
Damage? 3 [sub](not a lot of damage but they attack with pack mentality)[/sub]
Difficulty to strike? 8 [sub](kind of easy to hit but does no good unless they hit the eyes)[/sub]
difficulty to kill individually? [sub]10 (again because of not knowing where to attack them)[/sub]
number of attacks?[sub] 3 every 2 rounds[/sub]
special attack(s)? fetted bite  [sub](found somewhere on an extended list of special attacks)[/sub]
weaknesses - 20[sub] (large number showing the weakness to kill upon exploiting)[/sub]
number appearing? 7
[/font]

and after choosing all these number 1-20 --- reference a chart or list and get the information for the actual numbers that you would need
I'll provide a simple example ..
you look at the number you have selected (8 for the graesha)
[font=courier new]Ability to strike
1--- 4 + simulated level
2--- 5 + simulated level
3--- 6 + simulated level
4--- 7 + simulated level
5--- 8 + simulated level
6--- 9 + simulated level
7---11 + simulated level
8---13 + simulated level
9---15 + simulated level
10---17 + simulated level
etc[/font]
so the Greasha Melee bonus would be 13 +5 -- 18
[sub]note: You're average warrior would have around a +18 melee bonus at level 5. [/sub]
thats really crude but just an example.

If character creation is lengthy, then for speed's sake it would probably serve you better for monster creation to be have its own system. I prefer the other way because it lets me easily swap innovations between monsters, npcs, and players. Say I build a fear-mongering monster -- bringing that power of fearmongering to a character concept becomes a lot easier when the two are very similar. But clearly that isn't your situation.

The method you've posed seems solid for drafting foes for combat (I'd provide more specific criticism but I don't know enough about Steel+Staves), but what if you do want to talk it out with the centaur you mentioned? If all they have is combat stats, would that sort of thing just not happen? Or would you wing it?

I was improvising in my last post. I have not worked on any kinds of tables and rattles some off off the top of my head.
There would be social Tables and skill tables involved. Ideally any table the GM didn't see as useful could be ignored.
Basically I would really like to have a whole heap of tables/charts/lists that the GM could put to use for any kind of creature encounter.
He/She could pick and choose the ones they feel is relevant based on the intended encounter.

The centaur encounter I mentioned above would be depending on what kind of encounter the GM would intend to happen.
Maybe a lone centuar is frantically searching for his foal and suspects a group of travelers to have causes him harm.
He sees the party approaching and returns with a pack of angry friends. This encounter (were I GMing it) could go either social or more likely physical
(i know my group) So I would fill out my provided Creature Sheet (for lack of a better term) with information pertaining to physical combat as well as social combat. include such things as battle stategy and social tactics, mannerisms and demeanor,  but leave off the need for skills or magical attacks etc etc.

In a separate encounter maybe a lost boy wonders around lost and needs to find his way home...
In which cause the sheet would need only mannerisms and demeanor  - (maybe a skill or two - depending on age/society) and anything else non-combat related  (social or otherwise)

(I'd provide more specific criticism but I don't know enough about Steel+Staves)