Gygaxian Naturalism
from
http://blog.binkystick.com/2011/10/08/gygaxian-naturalism/
"Besides the banality of such a linear design with no features other than monsters to kill, one of the things that really makes us roll our eyes at this is it’s total lack of any sense of reality. Why on earth would a hill giant live in a room next to a basalisk? Don’t they ever come out of their rooms and encounter each other? Even once you move away from this literal design, a lot of people might argue that early modules had a fair share of this lack of logic. Heck, in my recent reading of S4 I couldn’t help but notice the large number of strange creatures all living in close proximity to each other, and how unusual that felt.
Gygaxian Naturalism takes the step to try and explain this, at least a little. The basilisk is the hill giant’s pet. The trolls spread the fungus around to attract more cave crickets to eat. There’s a reason things exist, some explanation as to how things got the way they currently are. It also gives us some interesting flavor to add at the time of play. What’s more interesting for a party, walking into a cave with three trolls standing around waiting to fight, or walking into a cave where three trolls are spreading fungus around on the floor?"
Rob ConleySeptember 4, 2008 at 10:43 AM
In
the defense of "Gygaxian Naturalism" I found including certain details
generates conflicts, conflicts means adventure which is the point of the
D&D game.
The problem is that not all details are equal. As the editions progressed people lost sight of that until the climax in 3rd edition where everything has a stat block.
As a DM you need to exercise judgment as to what details you include in your campaign. More than that you have to develop a system to teach the players the details you have.
In my own Majestic Wilderlands I developed over the years several techniques to ease players into the rich tapestry.
My Majestic Wilderlands has a lot of "realistic" details. I also use standard D&D fantasy trope incessantly relying characterization, plot and situation to provide variety.
But that not the only approach. The only rule is to be consistent so player can build their knowledge of your campaign. Good players will use their knowledge to seek out adventure in your campaign.
All of this is to provide conflicts that generate adventure. Why there is a thieves guild and a beggar's guild. Why three different tribes of orcs. And so on.
RThe problem is that not all details are equal. As the editions progressed people lost sight of that until the climax in 3rd edition where everything has a stat block.
As a DM you need to exercise judgment as to what details you include in your campaign. More than that you have to develop a system to teach the players the details you have.
In my own Majestic Wilderlands I developed over the years several techniques to ease players into the rich tapestry.
My Majestic Wilderlands has a lot of "realistic" details. I also use standard D&D fantasy trope incessantly relying characterization, plot and situation to provide variety.
But that not the only approach. The only rule is to be consistent so player can build their knowledge of your campaign. Good players will use their knowledge to seek out adventure in your campaign.
All of this is to provide conflicts that generate adventure. Why there is a thieves guild and a beggar's guild. Why three different tribes of orcs. And so on.
One
of my complaints about fourth edition is that it does away with
noncombatants. They are never mentioned in the monster manual at all.
All orcs are one of the five varieties of orcs listed. There are no
women and children.
I like having background things. I like that the party has to deal with civilians if they slaughter the warriors in an goblin tribe. I think it's important that villages have livestock. The 'Gygaxian Naturalism' you mention here is an important part of the verisimilitude of the world, and I miss it in the new version(s).
Still, that being said, if the players are looking more for straight combat without the moral problems inherent in having noncombatants around, I suppose having an all-male, all-warrior tribe of orcs doesn't hurt anything. Certainly my players look for that sort of thing sometimes. I think both forms of design have their place.
I like having background things. I like that the party has to deal with civilians if they slaughter the warriors in an goblin tribe. I think it's important that villages have livestock. The 'Gygaxian Naturalism' you mention here is an important part of the verisimilitude of the world, and I miss it in the new version(s).
Still, that being said, if the players are looking more for straight combat without the moral problems inherent in having noncombatants around, I suppose having an all-male, all-warrior tribe of orcs doesn't hurt anything. Certainly my players look for that sort of thing sometimes. I think both forms of design have their place.
Another great article.
I think I’d say it this way:
Gary added these things because he was creating a role-playing game, not making minor extensions to a wargame. When people complain that there’s nothing in the rules to support role-playing, they completely miss these things.
Gary didn’t see role-playing as needing mechanics in the same way that combat and magic do. He didn’t see the need for a general skill system to support role-playing.
He didn’t see a need to try to explain role-playing.
But he did see the need for the DM to have an idea of the monsters and NPCs beyond being combatants or targets of spells. Because, when the role-playing starts, these things become important. This stuff is the support for role-playing.
It’s also why the non-combatant monsters and NPCs don’t get stats. People criticize the older editions for giving deities stats because it turned them into targets. Yet they then criticize the rules for being “incomplete” because you can’t build every NPC in the milieu through the PC rules.
(FWIW, I like the “spontaneous generation” from a more pseudo-naturalist point-of-view. I like making the game world follow the laws of nature as the ancients or medieval folk viewed them.)
I think I’d say it this way:
Gary added these things because he was creating a role-playing game, not making minor extensions to a wargame. When people complain that there’s nothing in the rules to support role-playing, they completely miss these things.
Gary didn’t see role-playing as needing mechanics in the same way that combat and magic do. He didn’t see the need for a general skill system to support role-playing.
He didn’t see a need to try to explain role-playing.
But he did see the need for the DM to have an idea of the monsters and NPCs beyond being combatants or targets of spells. Because, when the role-playing starts, these things become important. This stuff is the support for role-playing.
It’s also why the non-combatant monsters and NPCs don’t get stats. People criticize the older editions for giving deities stats because it turned them into targets. Yet they then criticize the rules for being “incomplete” because you can’t build every NPC in the milieu through the PC rules.
(FWIW, I like the “spontaneous generation” from a more pseudo-naturalist point-of-view. I like making the game world follow the laws of nature as the ancients or medieval folk viewed them.)
don't like these later (to OD&D) specifications of every living creature and what it doing while is "behind scene". For me, more important thing is Unknown.
I find "Small Insect or Animals", "Large Insects And Animal" section of M&T (page 20) as a tool box, but not finished furniture. I don't want to kown how looks back wall of furniture. It's not important.
If I'll need to know it, I'll make it - different each time - depends on situation, module needs etc. I never looks for artificial monster description - if I know what I need, I'll do it. It's base element of D&D identity.
And the Unknown. Gygaxian Naturalism, as you interestingly called it, is not necessary integral part of D&D identity. I mean OD&D, not later versions/editions. It rather kills unpredictable and standarizing Unknown.
OD&D is rather unpredictable "reality" we drop in, act, play and get some thrill from it's weirdness - even when we see intelligent rabbit eating caviar or coming out of nowhere Cat-Goddess. Later appears only in short moment - nobody (even she) don't know what she's doing "behind scene". Illogical? Sure! But it's fantastic! Look at Other Worlds section (Volume III, p.24). Less logic, genre attributes or rules, better "unknowness" in it.
For me - evolutionary standarization and covering in rules everything is regression. I like AD&D 1e and Supplemets to OD&D as source of inspiration, but in all other cases avoid it. Too boring and mechanical.
Greets
J
I find "Small Insect or Animals", "Large Insects And Animal" section of M&T (page 20) as a tool box, but not finished furniture. I don't want to kown how looks back wall of furniture. It's not important.
If I'll need to know it, I'll make it - different each time - depends on situation, module needs etc. I never looks for artificial monster description - if I know what I need, I'll do it. It's base element of D&D identity.
And the Unknown. Gygaxian Naturalism, as you interestingly called it, is not necessary integral part of D&D identity. I mean OD&D, not later versions/editions. It rather kills unpredictable and standarizing Unknown.
OD&D is rather unpredictable "reality" we drop in, act, play and get some thrill from it's weirdness - even when we see intelligent rabbit eating caviar or coming out of nowhere Cat-Goddess. Later appears only in short moment - nobody (even she) don't know what she's doing "behind scene". Illogical? Sure! But it's fantastic! Look at Other Worlds section (Volume III, p.24). Less logic, genre attributes or rules, better "unknowness" in it.
For me - evolutionary standarization and covering in rules everything is regression. I like AD&D 1e and Supplemets to OD&D as source of inspiration, but in all other cases avoid it. Too boring and mechanical.
Greets
J
Gygaxian
naturalism, if I understand it correctly, isn’t going to give you stats
just to be mechanically orthogonal. It gives you combat stats for the
creatures you’re most likely to fight. But it also gives you some information about the creature beyond combat, because just because you might
fight it, that doesn’t mean you will. Likewise, it mentions
non-combatants because they’re important too, even if it doesn’t give
you combat stats for them. Being Gygaxian, though, these little
additions are often expressed by an ad hoc mechanic rather than pure “flavor”.
Which, perhaps, is what separates it from the ecologies of 2e.
Rach: “I also see your point, James, that not everything that can have stats should, but I for one feel sort of comfortable knowing that if I ever need stats for something, no matter how unusual, it's there somewhere or other.”
Isn’t it trivial to improvise combat stats for non-combatants when you have the stats for combatants? Isn’t a game that gives you stats for things that are trivially improvised going to result in information overload?
Which, perhaps, is what separates it from the ecologies of 2e.
Rach: “I also see your point, James, that not everything that can have stats should, but I for one feel sort of comfortable knowing that if I ever need stats for something, no matter how unusual, it's there somewhere or other.”
Isn’t it trivial to improvise combat stats for non-combatants when you have the stats for combatants? Isn’t a game that gives you stats for things that are trivially improvised going to result in information overload?
