Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andor" data-source="post: 5836919" data-attributes="member: 1879"><p>Nope. As I said, this is not an edition wars thread. </p><p></p><p>WRT the Ochre jelly. No edition of D&D ever (including 3.x) included rules for training non-intelligent, hostile monsters.</p><p></p><p>The story, as I recall it, was written by E.G.Gygax in a Dragon Magazine. It described how the party saw the jelly lurking in a corridor intersection. It was large and formidable looking so they didn't want to fight it. Now jellies cannot see, in any edition. So the MU tossed a fireball at it from long range. Mindless or not fire hurts and the jelly retreated since could detect no source of the damage to attack. </p><p></p><p>The MU got a bright idea. The next day they came back and this time he rang the bell and tossed a fireball, jelly retreated. After a few more days of this and the sound of the bell alone was enough to drive the jelly away and the party was able to proceed down the corridor without a nasty fight and with the jelly functionally guarding their backs against wandering monsters. </p><p></p><p>This could be done, with the same rationale in any edition of D&D, if the GM liked the idea and agreed that you could use operant conditioning on something with the brains of a jelly fish. (Current research supports this notion in sea slugs, so I'd buy it.) Likewise it would NOT work in any edition of D&D if the GM did not buy the idea.</p><p></p><p>Allowing the PCs creative solution to work is not what I would consider Tomb of Horroresque hostile GM/PC interaction but YMMV.</p><p></p><p>No rules set is ever going to specify how every mindless creature must or must not react to every stimuli that PCs could inflict on it. No rules set is going to specifically cover every situation PCs can dream up. (Off the top of my head: Leaving an immovable rod hovering at knee height while being chased down a dark corridor, what happens?)</p><p></p><p>These days, and this is not a mechanical feature of any system, the thought seems to be that it is not "fair" or "balanced" to allow sneaky bastard PCs to bypass or neutralize a threat with unconventional tactics. Likewise it is "unfair" for GMs to present a situation with no obvious or simple solutions. </p><p></p><p>I'm trying to foster discussion of where along the spectrum of the simulationist 'expolitable realism' to the gamist 'balanced abstraction' the good people of Enworld would like to see 5e set it's goals.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andor, post: 5836919, member: 1879"] Nope. As I said, this is not an edition wars thread. WRT the Ochre jelly. No edition of D&D ever (including 3.x) included rules for training non-intelligent, hostile monsters. The story, as I recall it, was written by E.G.Gygax in a Dragon Magazine. It described how the party saw the jelly lurking in a corridor intersection. It was large and formidable looking so they didn't want to fight it. Now jellies cannot see, in any edition. So the MU tossed a fireball at it from long range. Mindless or not fire hurts and the jelly retreated since could detect no source of the damage to attack. The MU got a bright idea. The next day they came back and this time he rang the bell and tossed a fireball, jelly retreated. After a few more days of this and the sound of the bell alone was enough to drive the jelly away and the party was able to proceed down the corridor without a nasty fight and with the jelly functionally guarding their backs against wandering monsters. This could be done, with the same rationale in any edition of D&D, if the GM liked the idea and agreed that you could use operant conditioning on something with the brains of a jelly fish. (Current research supports this notion in sea slugs, so I'd buy it.) Likewise it would NOT work in any edition of D&D if the GM did not buy the idea. Allowing the PCs creative solution to work is not what I would consider Tomb of Horroresque hostile GM/PC interaction but YMMV. No rules set is ever going to specify how every mindless creature must or must not react to every stimuli that PCs could inflict on it. No rules set is going to specifically cover every situation PCs can dream up. (Off the top of my head: Leaving an immovable rod hovering at knee height while being chased down a dark corridor, what happens?) These days, and this is not a mechanical feature of any system, the thought seems to be that it is not "fair" or "balanced" to allow sneaky bastard PCs to bypass or neutralize a threat with unconventional tactics. Likewise it is "unfair" for GMs to present a situation with no obvious or simple solutions. I'm trying to foster discussion of where along the spectrum of the simulationist 'expolitable realism' to the gamist 'balanced abstraction' the good people of Enworld would like to see 5e set it's goals. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Old School : Tucker's Kobolds and Trained Jellies
Top