Quote:
Originally Posted by fmitchell
The point of this hypothetical book is not to hand the GM a pre-made ecology, but to present ecological niches and let the GM fill them as he sees fit. So, for example, if the GM creates a carnivorous species, he doesn't forget to create enough prey of whatever species to sustain the carnivorous population.
|
Assuming that such creatures need an ecology to support them. For instance Dragons might live off of magical energy, and only eat the odd maiden or two for variety.
Maybe rather than an "ecology of" approach, the method used in Sci-FI RPGs like Traveler might be best. Work up a few categories like, Grazer, Chaser and Pouncer, and just assign creatures to a category. Leave an exotic categories for the strange stuff. That way you get a rough ecology without making creatures interdependent with specific other creatures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fmitchell
Finally, notes on playing creatures would also help. Natural animals (and sapients!) would run away from a superior aggressor, not attack mindlessly. Semi-intelligent or intelligent creatures would use strategy and their innate abilities instead of a full-on assault. I'm sure someone who did the research could find behavior patterns in nature to supplement common sense, for the GM who wanted realistic animal behavior.
|
Yeah, I with you on this. Maybe something like a flight or flight rating, and a few notes of how certain creatures react. I get a little tired of campaigns where very creatures fights on suicidally unto death.
There are a few RPGs that do give such guidelines (such as Traveler), and some of it would be helpful to BRP. Even things like how bears tend to backtrack pursuers or that playing dead can sometimes stop them from attacking you would be useful in the creature description.