Goopy Critters

General topics, including off-topic discussion, goes here.
User avatar
Boggo
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:17 pm

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by Boggo »

Solomoriah wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:45 pm Okay, so for once you guys are all agreeing with me.

... you're planning something sneaky, I know it!

ANYWAY. This is what I see as the lineup:

Jelly
Jelly, Black (Black Pudding)
Jelly, Glass (Gelatinous Cube)
Jelly, Green (Green Slime)
Jelly, Gray (Gray Ooze)
Jelly, Ochre

I'll add crossreferences for the old names:

Gelatinous Cube
See Jelly, Glass on page X
though if you're having the cross reference worded like that technically you don't need the parenthetical name in the Jelly section, but thats more a stylistic choice than anything else
No matter where you go...there you are
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by Solomoriah »

"Technically" I don't need it, but redundancy serves a purpose here. If the GM finds the monster while looking through the jellies and is not familiar with our names, seeing the traditional name would be helpful. If the GM is looking for the traditional name, then the crossreference is what is seen first.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
User avatar
Jim1804
Posts: 234
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2022 10:57 pm

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by Jim1804 »

coureur_d_bois wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:47 pm
Solomoriah wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:45 pm Okay, so for once you guys are all agreeing with me.

... you're planning something sneaky, I know it!

ANYWAY. This is what I see as the lineup:

Jelly
Jelly, Black (Black Pudding)
Jelly, Glass (Gelatinous Cube)
Jelly, Green (Green Slime)
Jelly, Gray (Gray Ooze)
Jelly, Ochre

I'll add crossreferences for the old names:

Gelatinous Cube
See Jelly, Glass on page X
Awesome, this looks like a solution that will please everyone!
Agree - new names with cross reference seems like a good solution!
User avatar
LibraryLass
Posts: 1057
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 10:02 pm

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by LibraryLass »

I'll join the chorus of positive voices on this one.
User avatar
toddlyons
Posts: 869
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:25 am
Location: Unceded Algonquin Territory
Contact:

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by toddlyons »

Solomoriah wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:45 pm Okay, so for once you guys are all agreeing with me.
... you're planning something sneaky, I know it!
He's onto us... :lol:
User avatar
Boggo
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:17 pm

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by Boggo »

toddlyons wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 1:10 am
Solomoriah wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 11:45 pm Okay, so for once you guys are all agreeing with me.
... you're planning something sneaky, I know it!
He's onto us... :lol:
quick, Unleash the Giraffe Gnolls!
No matter where you go...there you are
User avatar
Wing_department
Posts: 86
Joined: Tue May 24, 2022 2:41 am

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by Wing_department »

Yes, I think grouping all oozes together is the superior option. When I think of puting a goop in my adventures, I never have a specific one in mind - I choose the one that has the right number of hit dice. Therefore, grouping is more convenient.
And, of course, the cross-referencing fits the mission of BFRPG well - all editions are 100% compatible.
The biggest fan of Ockham's razor.
User avatar
knghtbrd
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2023 8:56 am

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by knghtbrd »

Wouldn't normally pipe up to express a non-opinion but in this case I think it really doesn't matter. The old names or the new, I would know what was meant. The idea that the old names redirect you to the jellies section works well, I think.
Dinipedia
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2023 9:53 am

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by Dinipedia »

I like the Jelly ones except for Glass Jelly. Gelatinous Cube just sounds better to me. Either way it wom’t change much
User avatar
leon
Posts: 289
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:28 pm
Location: Martinez, CA
Contact:

Re: Goopy Critters

Post by leon »

OK, if no one else is going offer a dissenting opinion, here's an argument against grouping them. I don't feel strongly about this, but thought it deserved a counter-argument.

The category is strained. Grouping them into one type is a 2e/3e approach, incongruent with the 1980ish experience. Forcing one category divided by color introduces complexity and confusion.

The category is strained because black puddings and gelatinous cubes move relatively fast and with some kind of intelligence, where gray ooze and green slime hardly move at all. Some are described as willful hunters, while others are hardly more than traps that are more like yellow mold.

Traditionally, as we know, these monsters were ungrouped. 2e had a category called deadly puddings, of which there were four types: black, white, dun, brown. These variants are an intriguing trick to throw at players. 2e has another category called "Ooze/Slime/Jelly" under which fall Ochre Jelly, Gray Ooze, Crystal Ooze, Gelatinous Cube, and Green Slime. 3e stuffs all of them into one ooze category.

Incidentally, ooze is more evocative of something that moves, compared to a jelly, which sounds like something you eat or put on a rash.

If you stuff everything into one category and divide by color, you may have conflicts where two jellies have similar coloring but are different monsters. Ochre is also reddish-brown. The Curse from FG2 would need to be called a reddish-brown jelly. And we have red slime.

If the aim is to create a game that mirrors how people played around 1980, keep them separate.
I solemnly swear to fulfill the game master's oath to the best of my ability and judgment.

EmptyZ Campaign Blog: emptyz.com/blog
Personal Blog: leonatkinson.com
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests