Bestiary 4e

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

DF 8 (for example) doesn't repeat the text for items from other sources. It just says "Helmet Lamp, DF1 p xx" Or whatever. Why can't GURPS Bestiary 3: Grasslands just say Wolf, Bestiary 1 p. xx?

I think it'd be better to just repeat the content so it's all in one place. And I'd lump together survival specialties. Probably two per PDF.

One assumes in DF that you have DF1. It's a less reasonable assumption that you've bought all the previous Bestiaries, IMO.

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by Humabout

Ha, you ninja'd my edit!
GURPS Bestiary 1 - Carnivores
GURPS Bestiary 2 - Large Herbivores
GURPS Bestiary 3 - Small Mammals
GURPS Bestiary 4 - Primates
GURPS Bestiary 5 - Weird Mammals
GURPS Bestiary 6 - Birds
GURPS Bestiary 7 - Reptiles & Amphibions
GURPS Bestiary 8 - Acquatic Life (put whales and dolphins in here; keep seals and walruses with Carnivores, since those are on land as well as sea)
GURPS Bestiary 9 - Bugs

I really hope it will be a single book and not a series like that...
Volumes with a title like "Small Mammals", "Primates" or "Birds" most likely won't sell good. Also it would be much more handy to have a single reference with all of the most useful animals included (and a cheaper buy, too). For me it wouldn't be a problem if some rare cases are missing, as long as there are related animals so I could come up with derived stats.
Moreover I really like and prefer printed creature books with nice graphics, especially a good color artwork =)

If they really wanted a bestiary series like your example IMHO it would be very strange that nothing like that is listed in the e23-wishlist, so I think it's not that, more likely a single volume...

Last but not least, I'd be happy if they also include a few fictional creatures, to make it a bit more exciting/inspiring and not "just" 100% real world animals.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

I think it'd be better to just repeat the content so it's all in one place. And I'd lump together survival specialties. Probably two per PDF.

One assumes in DF that you have DF1. It's a less reasonable assumption that you've bought all the previous Bestiaries, IMO.

There comes to a point where you just can't put everything in every book. I really don't think it's unreasonable to say "If you want every animal, you might have to buy every book". I'm going to get honked off at looking at a new copy of "Rat" in every single freeking book, I tell you what.

[Faolyn]

Originally Posted by Humabout

Ha, you ninja'd my edit!

That's my thinking, as well. And considering the bevity of DFM1, it might be more in keeping to use each subdivision of mammals as its own book, perhaps?

GURPS Bestiary 1 - Carnivores
GURPS Bestiary 2 - Large Herbivores
GURPS Bestiary 3 - Small Mammals
GURPS Bestiary 4 - Primates
GURPS Bestiary 5 - Weird Mammals
GURPS Bestiary 6 - Birds
GURPS Bestiary 7 - Reptiles & Amphibions
GURPS Bestiary 8 - Acquatic Life (put whales and dolphins in here; keep seals and walruses with Carnivores, since those are on land as well as sea)
GURPS Bestiary 9 - Bugs

Order was as I thought to list them; not any suggestion as to actual release order at all.

Coming in a bit late to the conversation, but...

You don't really need that level of detail. Take snakes: all you need are the basic stats for small snakes, medium-sized snakes, large snakes, with various lenses thrown on to represent the venom or constricting abilities of various species. As an example, take the acidriad from Creatures of the Night volume 4, which has a sidebar consisting of 163 words describing six subspecies. While the entry for the acidriad is quite long, it's because the critter itself is a fantasy beast, and it includes adventure seeds (and, IMO, the text is a bit padded; the description could have been fit onto one page instead of two).

Likewise, in many cases, a mammal is a mammal. Despite the incredibly high amount of detail shown in, say, Pizard's Animalia page, you don't need 17 different sets of stats for mustelids (not counting the slightly different stats for males and females) when maybe three or four will do. Nor do you need a zillion types of monkey, when all you really need is something that's a good climber, is fairly intelligent, and has a prehensile tail. Heck, DF: Allies says to use the stats for the hawk to represent a raven, even though they are quite dissimilar animals in real life--but they don't have to be, stat-wise.

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Faolyn

Heck, DF: Allies says to use the stats for the hawk to represent a raven, even though they are quite dissimilar animals in real life--but they don't have to be, stat-wise.

Yeah but that is DF :)
Your right though Lenses are the way to go.
I would separate snakes, constrictor from snakes, venom based though.
Basic already does this with a few animals.
You could then write up the details on role and tactics and general description in the main body and then add several lenses for specific subspecies, so each would have a stat block and possibly a few sentences on description or changes to the base template.
However that still brings up the issue of how to orgnaize them.
If this were a database it would be no big deal as you could have it both ways. However a print product needs to be organized one way, with sub categories or an appendix for others.

What methods then?
Alphabetical organization gives you books by letters and your extremely likely to need more then one book for just about anything.
Biome organization gives you all the creatures by area so a campaign centered around a particular environment may only need one book.
It is an intuitive way for most people to find what there looking for and organized in way that is most likely to come up in a campaign. The disadvantage is that you may have duplication between books.
Birds will be in most biomes, just different lenses for example.
Order or Family organization group them all together so if you only want arthropods you just buy that book, or reptiles may be another.
However really how often does it work that way? In play your likely to need several books regardless of campaign type and finding a specific creature may be tough if you only know its name but not what family/order or such it belongs to.

To me its pretty clear the Biome method is superior and I would then go with each biome getting one book that includes all the real animals plus a chapter on the environmental issues. Cover Survival, travel, tracking, weather, etc.
Also special combat rules that may apply, specifically in say air and water.
Then if there is left over room add Fantasy and other unreal creatures.
However for heavily populated biomes you may just have those in an extra book.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Refplace

What methods then?
Alphabetical organization gives you books by letters and your extremely likely to need more then one book for just about anything.
Biome organization gives you all the creatures by area so a campaign centered around a particular environment may only need one book.
It is an intuitive way for most people to find what there looking for and organized in way that is most likely to come up in a campaign. The disadvantage is that you may have duplication between books.
Birds will be in most biomes, just different lenses for example.
Order or Family organization group them all together so if you only want arthropods you just buy that book, or reptiles may be another.
However really how often does it work that way? In play your likely to need several books regardless of campaign type and finding a specific creature may be tough if you only know its name but not what family/order or such it belongs to.

To me its pretty clear the Biome method is superior and I would then go with each biome getting one book that includes all the real animals plus a chapter on the environmental issues. Cover Survival, travel, tracking, weather, etc.
Also special combat rules that may apply, specifically in say air and water.
Then if there is left over room add Fantasy and other unreal creatures.
However for heavily populated biomes you may just have those in an extra book.

What would make the most sense is probably a mixture: a base Bestiary book that includes a whole whack of generic animal templates, for Birds, Apes, what have you. Don't go into any real detail on any specific animal, but include the basics for a bunch of them. These will be the things that are going to be reused in multiple books.

Next, make follow-up books focusing on specific biomes. These books would primarily be full of lenses that apply to the generic creature templates in the primary book, as well as detailed descriptions of each of the critters in that biome, how to survive in it, whatever.

You could even include a Bestiary: Power Ups! type book that includes lenses similar to Mailanka's Homebrew Monsters thread and information about different ways to make combat cool and interesting or whatever, and a Bestiary: Aliens! book that includes generic lenses that can be applied to the various animals in order to turn them into space-dogs or whatever.

[Faolyn]

Originally Posted by Refplace

Yeah but that is DF :)
To me its pretty clear the Biome method is superior and I would then go with each biome getting one book that includes all the real animals plus a chapter on the environmental issues. Cover Survival, travel, tracking, weather, etc.
Also special combat rules that may apply, specifically in say air and water.
Then if there is left over room add Fantasy and other unreal creatures.
However for heavily populated biomes you may just have those in an extra book.

The problem with doing it via biome is that there are lots of animals that live in multiple biomes. Foxes and wolves can be found in the arctic and the desert; there are dolphins in the ocean and in rivers. Why list them in two separate books? Honestly, alphabetical order is a lot easier, especially if you can’t remember where a creature lives, or place your animals using the Rule of Cool. And, of course, fantastic animals can go everywhere. Real world mythology might place, say, the cockatrice in deserts (mostly because it makes them), but why not place them in the forests or jungles?

A lot of fantasy animals are just real animals with special abilities. For instance, take a horse (OK, the horse is one of those animals that does need several sets of stats, for warhorses and riding horses and the like). Flying horse lens: add Flight (Winged) or Flight (Small Wings) and Dependency (Mana). Maybe add a point or two of IQ as well, and perhaps the skills Flight and Aeronautics. Mare of Diomedes lens: add Sharp Teeth, Bloodthirsty, and Uncontrollable Appetite. Unicorn (the original, unintelligent version) lens: Impaling Striker, Healing (Xenohealing or Faith Healing), Divine Curse (can be tamed by a virgin), etc.

I'd suggest a second book of fantasy creatures as well, because a lot of them can't be done as simple lens. Or are complex enough to warrant numerous variations, such as the unicorn. The above is a very basic version, but the original unicorn liked slaughtering elephants, and there are different varieties, including unicorn-like creatures like kirins, monocereses, and so on.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Faolyn

The problem with doing it via biome is that there are lots of animals that live in multiple biomes. Foxes and wolves can be found in the arctic and the desert; there are dolphins in the ocean and in rivers. Why list them in two separate books? Honestly, alphabetical order is a lot easier, especially if you can’t remember where a creature lives, or place your animals using the Rule of Cool. And, of course, fantastic animals can go everywhere. Real world mythology might place, say, the cockatrice in deserts (mostly because it makes them), but why not place them in the forests or jungles?

Are you seriously suggesting SJGames release a book 'Bestiary 1: Creatures That Start With A-D'? That's ridiculous.

[Faolyn]

Originally Posted by Langy

Are you seriously suggesting SJGames release a book 'Bestiary 1: Creatures That Start With A-D'? That's ridiculous.

No, of course not. But I think that people are assuming a level of detail that isn't really needed. 3rd edition Bestiary included a bunch of animals (somewhere around 130), including dinosaurs, "creepy-crawlies", giant insect, and a few fantasy beasts, all in about 45 pages; the remaining 80-90 pages is about werebeasts (40 pages), hunting and trapping, and GM tips for running animals.

None of those last three things are really needed. If the animal descriptions are increased by another paragraph or two each, and a few lenses are added on to some of them, then you'd probably fill up that entire 130 pages nicely; expand the book to 170 pages (the size of Horror or Low Tech) and you can have a great many more animals, including a fair number of fantasy and alien creatures, and quite possibly also info about hunting, weres, and running (or playing) animals, or even how to place animals on your non-Earth worlds (useful for determining a predator-to-pray ratio).

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Langy

What would make the most sense is probably a mixture: a base Bestiary book that includes a whole whack of generic animal templates, for Birds, Apes, what have you. Don't go into any real detail on any specific animal, but include the basics for a bunch of them. These will be the things that are going to be reused in multiple books.

Next, make follow-up books focusing on specific biomes. These books would primarily be full of lenses that apply to the generic creature templates in the primary book, as well as detailed descriptions of each of the critters in that biome, how to survive in it, whatever.

Interesting idea. Not sure if there would be enough people happy with a base book that was too incomplete but I kind of like it.
You could probably come up with enough detail for most types to be playable and still cover most things in a reasonable sized book.
Then each biome book would have more room for detailed descriptions and additional lenses. Also I like the stuff that was in Bestiary for 3E and would want that expanded to include things I noted above.

Do it using your suggestion and some of those biome books could be very small or allow for quite a few creatures and detail.

Originally Posted by Langy

Are you seriously suggesting SJGames release a book 'Bestiary 1: Creatures That Start With A-D'? That's ridiculous.

Yeah that is my thought on the subject but it seems to be a few who want it that way. I just do not see the benefit.
However your suggestion might just please those types as well. 1 book would really cover everything in a quick fashion.