We've discussed more than once about granularity in firearms, IMHO there's two camps and I find myself sometimes in one and sometimes in the other.

Now, how about in a Bestiary?

I'm working on the Bestiary for my Pulp Game (155 entries deep and counting), I want to include more than one venomous snake, I also want to have some granularity regarding how fast would each kill an average human in the game world (so, disregarding the size of both snake and human, ammount of venom, location of the bite (the GM can houserule those in), etc).

I was thinking of including the top ten most toxic (manbabies  ) snakes:
#VenomousSnakes for my #OSR #Pulp #Bestiary
Inland Taipan
Coastal Taipan
Black Mamba
King Cobra
Many-Banded Krait
Belcher's Sea Snake
Death Adder
Russell's Viper
Saw-Scaled Viper
Philippine Cobra
How fast would each kill a human in game?

Do huge lists of barely distinguishable things make the game more fun?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2023, 08:23:43 PM
We've discussed more than once about granularity in firearms, IMHO there's two camps and I find myself sometimes in one and sometimes in the other.

Now, how about in a Bestiary?

I'm working on the Bestiary for my Pulp Game (155 entries deep and counting), I want to include more than one venomous snake, I also want to have some granularity regarding how fast would each kill an average human in the game world (so, disregarding the size of both snake and human, ammount of venom, location of the bite (the GM can houserule those in), etc).

I was thinking of including the top ten most toxic (manbabies  ) snakes:
#VenomousSnakes for my #OSR #Pulp #Bestiary
Inland Taipan
Coastal Taipan
Black Mamba
King Cobra
Many-Banded Krait
Belcher's Sea Snake
Death Adder
Russell's Viper
Saw-Scaled Viper
Philippine Cobra
How fast would each kill a human in game?

Geeky,

I would think that for a pulp game, you would have just a few:

King Cobra (for games in Egypt)
Rattlesnake (for games in the Old West)
Giant Anaconda (for games in the jungle)

I'm actually writing a bestiary at the moment as well and dealing with the same issue.  There were two different approaches I used, depending on the beast.  For something like a snake, I would break it down into poisonous and constrictor, give a range of stats (hp,ac,poison damage etc) for each, and let the dm decide the appearance and pick something in the range on the fly.  For others that had similar abilities but one was a much higher level opponent, it made sense to fully stat out two version, e.g. "lesser boreal spirit" and "greater boreal spirit"

Quote from: Mishihari on November 15, 2023, 02:17:25 AM
I'm actually writing a bestiary at the moment as well and dealing with the same issue.  There were two different approaches I used, depending on the beast.  For something like a snake, I would break it down into poisonous and constrictor, give a range of stats (hp,ac,poison damage etc) for each, and let the dm decide the appearance and pick something in the range on the fly.  For others that had similar abilities but one was a much higher level opponent, it made sense to fully stat out two version, e.g. "lesser boreal spirit" and "greater boreal spirit"

This resonates with me. Classifying by species seems tricky since even that papers over a lot of variation. There can be a 9 foot green anaconda, or a 30 foot green anaconda. I think having a range of stats for the basic types (poisonous or constrictor) seems the most that I'd prefer.

Species sameness was something that has often bugged me in D&D - particularly in the case of druid wildshape, where comparing and choosing among animals was crucially important.

Quote from: Mishihari on November 15, 2023, 02:17:25 AM
I'm actually writing a bestiary at the moment as well and dealing with the same issue.  There were two different approaches I used, depending on the beast.  For something like a snake, I would break it down into poisonous and constrictor, give a range of stats (hp,ac,poison damage etc) for each, and let the dm decide the appearance and pick something in the range on the fly.  For others that had similar abilities but one was a much higher level opponent, it made sense to fully stat out two version, e.g. "lesser boreal spirit" and "greater boreal spirit"

This.  Then if you really do want to make a distinction on different venom, you can add options to the venomous snakes:  Cobra venom (stats).  Black Mamba venom (stats).  Don't know that I'd get that specific, since IIRC, snake venom falls into 2-4 categories, based on how it operates, e.g nerve toxin versus flesh destroying venom. Specific details are great in a game, but you can separate them from mechanics to a degree.  So venomous snake stat block, followed by "Here's how you do a king cobra" short description and venom" right after.

Quote from: Domina on November 15, 2023, 01:10:04 AM
Do huge lists of barely distinguishable things make the game more fun?

They obviously do for the GM making them, and only he sees them.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on November 15, 2023, 06:11:31 AM

Quote from: Mishihari on November 15, 2023, 02:17:25 AM
I'm actually writing a bestiary at the moment as well and dealing with the same issue.  There were two different approaches I used, depending on the beast.  For something like a snake, I would break it down into poisonous and constrictor, give a range of stats (hp,ac,poison damage etc) for each, and let the dm decide the appearance and pick something in the range on the fly.  For others that had similar abilities but one was a much higher level opponent, it made sense to fully stat out two version, e.g. "lesser boreal spirit" and "greater boreal spirit"

This.  Then if you really do want to make a distinction on different venom, you can add options to the venomous snakes:  Cobra venom (stats).  Black Mamba venom (stats).  Don't know that I'd get that specific, since IIRC, snake venom falls into 2-4 categories, based on how it operates, e.g nerve toxin versus flesh destroying venom. Specific details are great in a game, but you can separate them from mechanics to a degree.  So venomous snake stat block, followed by "Here's how you do a king cobra" short description and venom" right after.

Maybe I didn't explain myself, it's not about giving each snake a different stat block, it's about the venoms, not all are equally potent even if two are hemotoxins one has a more fast acting than the other.

Quote from: Aglondir on November 15, 2023, 01:18:22 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 14, 2023, 08:23:43 PM
We've discussed more than once about granularity in firearms, IMHO there's two camps and I find myself sometimes in one and sometimes in the other.

Now, how about in a Bestiary?

I'm working on the Bestiary for my Pulp Game (155 entries deep and counting), I want to include more than one venomous snake, I also want to have some granularity regarding how fast would each kill an average human in the game world (so, disregarding the size of both snake and human, ammount of venom, location of the bite (the GM can houserule those in), etc).

I was thinking of including the top ten most toxic (manbabies  ) snakes:
#VenomousSnakes for my #OSR #Pulp #Bestiary
Inland Taipan
Coastal Taipan
Black Mamba
King Cobra
Many-Banded Krait
Belcher's Sea Snake
Death Adder
Russell's Viper
Saw-Scaled Viper
Philippine Cobra
How fast would each kill a human in game?

Geeky,

I would think that for a pulp game, you would have just a few:

King Cobra (for games in Egypt)
Rattlesnake (for games in the Old West)
Giant Anaconda (for games in the jungle)

In the jungle there's also venomous snakes, except in Hawai.

The idea isn't to include ALL the snakes in the world, but to allow the GM to use more or less deadly ones as he wishes.

Maybe consider something like a Toxic Table. Have several columns and the GM can go along and choose one trait from each column. This then allows it to be easily accessed for a variety of things: snakes, insects, plants, whatever.

For example column one is Type and you have options of Neurotoxic, Cytotoxic, Proteolytic and Hemotoxic. Then column 2 has Lethality: Weak (d4), Mild (d8) or Lethal (d12). You can have columns for rapidity, secondary effects, treatment, other uses, etc.

I've been obsessing over encountered tables lately.

I think some granularity is useful some is not. For example, there is little difference between bandits and brigands, and pirates and buccaneers, in B/X.

Specifically about snakes, B/X has FIVE, but all under the same entry - which is a good idea IMO.

So, I think some granularity IS justified here. And appropriate for a pulp setting.

Snakes are dangerous creatures. I've been in Pantanal (flooded plains) and, while it is common to see jaguars, alligators, anteaters (those things have claws), piranhas (quippers), and many other animals, snakes are the only ones who actually kill people from time to time (other cases happens, but are much rarer).

(also wild pigs - I've read they break horses legs).

Quote from: rgalex on November 15, 2023, 11:44:49 AM
Maybe consider something like a Toxic Table. Have several columns and the GM can go along and choose one trait from each column. This then allows it to be easily accessed for a variety of things: snakes, insects, plants, whatever.

For example column one is Type and you have options of Neurotoxic, Cytotoxic, Proteolytic and Hemotoxic. Then column 2 has Lethality: Weak (d4), Mild (d8) or Lethal (d12). You can have columns for rapidity, secondary effects, treatment, other uses, etc.

YES! That's perfect for creating new bests not included in the Bestiary (or poisons), but I feel like there needs to be a reference to real world venomous creatures, I can't find a single resource that tells you how fast one snake would kill you.

I could just make it all up, but I rether not if I can avoid it, here's where some real world can and should be injected (pun intended) IMHO.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on November 15, 2023, 12:58:54 PM
I've been obsessing over encountered tables lately.

I think some granularity is useful some is not. For example, there is little difference between bandits and brigands, and pirates and buccaneers, in B/X.

Specifically about snakes, B/X has FIVE, but all under the same entry - which is a good idea IMO.

So, I think some granularity IS justified here. And appropriate for a pulp setting.

Snakes are dangerous creatures. I've been in Pantanal (flooded plains) and, while it is common to see jaguars, alligators, anteaters (those things have claws), piranhas (quippers), and many other animals, snakes are the only ones who actually kill people from time to time (other cases happens, but are much rarer).

(also wild pigs - I've read they break horses legs).

B/X as in the original or the retroclone?

I've been thinking along similar lines. For humanoids I want diversity, like you might in 4E so I can populate an orc den with a variety of orcs (skirmishes, brutes, shaman) but with Deer I come back to the old 'herd animal' is probably more than enough.

Is it more or less fun to have venom that kills you in three hours by closing your throat so you can't breathe or one that makes you spasm and flop about in chills for days before killing you? Or is this the type of thing GMs live but which mostly just complicate the game and aren't really fun for anyone.

I'm werking on a bestiary, but the creatures are so different from each other.