The nice thing about the little insignificant details, such as a monster being able to create wine, is that they can serve as plot hooks and inspiration. Some of the best DM-ing experiences I have had stemmed from these little and seemingly insignificant details. They are my inspiration. I guess I would miss these when I would be playing 4th edition.
Also too you can flavour your own campaign to suit whatever mythos you want--admittedly you always could but you can't help but be influenced by the material in a book you're using for inspiration. Take the Midnight Campaign setting--it uses conventional D&D beings but their origins, abilities and sense of themelves is unusual, kind of like Tolkien where the good guys have almost lost the war and there is no Ring.
Excellent article. I see why the Grognard's are complaining, but it think they are misdirected. And by the way I think I qualify as a Grognard although I did not actually play the original chainmail.
I think 4th Edition does not yet support naturalism/ verisimilitude. I think a new generation 'might' miss this with 4th edition. I say 'might' because it might also be planned as future splat books. But those of us who already have every other edition don't need it a fourth time. We should be happy that we got so much crunch that can actually expend on old themes.
As an example, I am currently a player and we are fighting kobolds. 4th Edition has added more to the concept of kobold overcoming their physical weakness with cleverness. In this case, the new kobolds do not just have the ranged weapon guys and trap setters. They also added vermin masters that use 'pets' to attack opponents. This has added an aspect to kobolds which I have not seen before. As for verisimilitude, we fought all the combatants and there were no females and young. But the DM added a note from the shaman asking permission of their Dark Lord to return to their native lands and village. Bang, instant verisimilitude.
Back to point, if we complained that the new edition does not teach verisimilitude, you are right. But Grognard's don’t need it and should actually be viewing 4th Edition as a resource to add to the game. Our only complaint is that OTHER generations will miss something. Maybe if we explained ourselves better and did not say '4th Edition is not D&D', we might be better received.
EDIT: Maybe another complaint is that some of the new fluff conflicts with old fluff. But I don't play The realms or Planes so I won't notice.
|
Sidebar: to Duncan - this thread isn't really supposed to slide into that discussion, but since you've brought up the "4e is not D&D" statement, I'm tending to side with Clark "Orcus" Peterson from Necromancer Games. I was concerned when he so quickly tried to embrace this failed edition, but he seems to have seen the light, just saying Thursday, "It [4E] just isnt D&D to me, the more I play it. Yes, I can defend it. Yes, I can say it is. But the truth is that my heart knows it isnt D&D anymore. I cant ignore that. I want D&D. To me the soul of D&D was AD&D. Somehow that got lost in making 4E."
All - thank you for the intelligent discussion about Gygaxian Naturalism. I've tried in this thread to provide some more substantive description of the "feel" of the d&d that I think carries through previous editions. And to those who said previous versions such as Gary's DMG should be required reading, I also agree. There's a lot to be learned from the past, especially if one values continuing these traditional ideas in their games.
I agree that for the usual meaning of epic, verisimilitude is an essential requirement of a game, and this is my general preference for the campaigns I run, but I also want to play games where the Heroes can do things that stretch the "natural order" of the game world, where they can "get away" with things that they can only do because they are characters in a game.
My take is that what separates heroes in epic from heroes in fantasy epic is this ability to "stretch" the natural order--and I think the same thing would go for fantasy villains. However, there is always some explanation, some rationale, for why these, the heroes and perhaps the villain, are able to do what the ordinary inhabitants of the fantasy world cannot do. (On the one hand, the latter are stand-ins for those of us who are ordinary in our ordinary world, while on the other hand we transpose ourselves onto the heroes who "get away with" the amazing.) So I still see the element of verisimilitude as highly important. For example, characters who can run up walls or bamboo-trees have mastered the flow of chi through their body, characters who can resist the corruption of the ring have loyalty to others in the highest degree, and so on. And on more difuse levels, it gives you these other inhabitants of the world that give it its feel: creatures who can make their own feasts, and timeless characters who can command sentient, twisted willows.
EDIT: I agree with Jerry Wright on his "gamist" point. Also, there are those who try to distinguish between "narrativist" and "simulationist", and it seems to me that this discussion really shows that if there is a distinction between them, there is also a strong point of contact, or better yet unity, when it comes to the ecology of the fantasy world.
a fine bottle of Furyondian wine ...And a bottle dated CY 254 would fetch a VERY high price (if any of that vintage survive)...
The vintage is irrelevant. It has no mechanical benefit. It does not maximize damage. It is fluff. Fluff will be eliminated. Crunch will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Assimilate this.
*faaaaaaart!!!*
|
Nice article.
However, I would add two quick points about 'Gygaxian Naturalism':
First, Gygaxian fantasy is 'realistic' or 'naturalistic' only insofar as it accurately models the 'reality' depicted in pulp fantasy rather than the 'reality' that we are familiar withfrom the real world. Thus, Gygaxian fantasy includes lots of stuff that is blatantly 'unrealistic' by normal standards, but which works in the context of the genre.
Gygax is a simulationist insofar as his work simulates a specific literary subgenre. His personal interest was in the kind of fantasy that expemplified by Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, H.P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt. This is why he included stuff like hit points and the Vancian magic system - they aren't 'realistic' in any absolute sense, but they work perfectly within the context of the pulp fantasy subgenre because they model genre conventions.
Secondly, it should be noted that Gygaxian naturalism is more art than science - the aim was to achieve the appearance of realism without being constrained by the need to slavishly simulate the reality of medieval life.
Whenever there was a conflict between realism and the needs of the story, Gygax chose to throw realism out the window.
This is why some of the classic 1e modules contain encounters that seem silly to modern sensibilities. But they usually work within the context of the game session because they are embedded in a setting that is otherwise fairly realistic.
If you look at the early work of Gygax carefully, you will find that often foreground details contain fantastic elements while the background context is very mundane. Thus, Gygax would place incredible encounters in a realistic context or fill incredible settings with comparatively mundane creatures.
This is how he got away with breaking the 'realism' of the setting - you can forgive the fact that the Caves of Chaos are packed with humanoids who hate each other because they each live in a lair decorated with mundane items and behave in a believable manner.
IMHO, it was this clever juxtaposition of fantastic and realistic elements that allows Gygaxian fantasy to get away with so much whilst preserving a sense of naturalism.
|
|
Incidentally, anybody who is inerested in the philosophy of Gygaxian naturalism should also read the Quick Primer for Old School Gaming that can be downloaded for free from Lulu at the following URL:
http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374
Here's a sample section that may be relevant to this discussion:
The old-style campaign is with fantasy world, with all its perils, contradictions, and surprises: it’s not a “game setting” which somehow always produces challenges of just the right difficulty for the party’s level of experience. The party has no “right” only to encounter monsters they can defeat, no “right” only to encounter traps they can disarm, no “right” to invoke a particular rule from the books, and no “right” to a die roll in every particular circumstance. This sort of situation isn’t a mistake in the rules.
Game balance just isn’t terribly important in old-style gaming. It’s not a tournament where the players are against the GM. It’s more like a story with dice: the players describe their actions, the referee describes the results, and the story of the characters, epic or disastrous, grows out of the combined efforts of referee and players. The referee will be just as surprised by the results as the players are.
3e rejected a lot of Gygaxian crap, and boy am I glad it did. Some people might like the idea that a 2nd level party might wander into an ancient red dragon's lair, but I wouldn't want to waste my valuable gaming time with such stupidity.
Sidebar: to Duncan - this thread isn't really supposed to slide into that discussion, but since you've brought up the "4e is not D&D" statement, I'm tending to side with Clark "Orcus" Peterson from Necromancer Games. I was concerned when he so quickly tried to embrace this failed edition, but he seems to have seen the light, just saying Thursday, "It [4E] just isnt D&D to me, the more I play it. Yes, I can defend it. Yes, I can say it is. But the truth is that my heart knows it isnt D&D anymore. I cant ignore that. I want D&D. To me the soul of D&D was AD&D. Somehow that got lost in making 4E."
Do you happen to have a link to this discussion?
|
Sidebar: to Duncan - this thread isn't really supposed to slide into that discussion, but since you've brought up the "4e is not D&D" statement, I'm tending to side with Clark "Orcus" Peterson from Necromancer Games. I was concerned when he so quickly tried to embrace this failed edition, but he seems to have seen the light, just saying Thursday, "It [4E] just isnt D&D to me, the more I play it. Yes, I can defend it. Yes, I can say it is. But the truth is that my heart knows it isnt D&D anymore. I cant ignore that. I want D&D. To me the soul of D&D was AD&D. Somehow that got lost in making 4E."Do you happen to have a link to this discussion?
Discussion is being kind. Nuclear flamewar is probably a better description. Reopening it is not a good plan.
|
|
Ronin - did you mean Orcus' discussion?
If so... link1
Otherwise, the malaise I was referring to is any general discussion about 4e. I know the 3.5/d20/OGL/PRPG community shares many of the Gygaxian principles, and many have found benefit in the Naturalism article, but hope to avoid this sliding into an edition war debate.
Obviously "pres man" doesn't care for this. I hoped to provide this insight for those of us who are care about 3.5/d20/OGL/PRPG/C&C/etc... and for those who may choose to use Gygaxian Naturalism and many other traditions of d&d in their games.
Pres man rejects the idea of a red dragon living where it lives regardless of the PC levels. So be it, his opinion.
For the most part I do balance my encounters, I do carefully select CR levels and encounter levels. However, they're spread from easy, medium to challenging. However, if the PCs choose to enter the red dragon's lair - they need to use utmost caution, because my worlds are living worlds and my players must make good choices. I reject pres man's view that this is "stupid" or a "waste of time." I repspect his right to an opinion, but find his language very rude.
A fine example of this is the local leaders, barons, dukes, or kings in my realms. They are not designed to be balanced against the party levels. They are who they are. Once the PCs reach 9th level, they could out-power some of them if they choose, but I wouldn't make them balanced against the party intentionally just because the PCs pay a visit. Perhaps pres man feels it is a waste of time, then to have a conversation with anyone over his character's level - - if so, perhaps he also prefers all his video games set to ultra easy difficulty as well...
I'm wondering why it's hear and not in the 4e forum.
I don't.
I'm wondering why it's hear and not in the 4e forum.
I'd guess it's because this is a topic primarily of interest to those who see the rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism as a failing of 4e and have therefore decided to stick with an earlier edition. The 4e forum is for gamers who are happy with the new edition and want to discuss it with other likeminded individuals. Starting a thread like this in that forum would be an incitement to riot. Neither those of us who want to discuss the topic peaceably nor those who want to discuss 4e with other fans ought to be subjected the flame war that would have inevitably resulted had it been in that forum instead of here.
James, is it just me, or do you look more mature? Maybe the maturity of your words have bled over onto your avatar...
; )
James, is it just me, or do you look more mature?
If "mature" is a synonym for "old," then, yes, I do look more ... mature :)
Let us say not merely advanced in years, but advanced in certain virtues as well...
if so, perhaps he also prefers all his video games set to ultra easy difficulty as well...
Well since I don't really play video games anymore, I don't really see what this comment has to do with anything. I can only assume that it is a pathetic attempt to label me as a "mindless video game player" because I do not choose to play the game in the fashion you deem "superior". You have your preference, I have mine. I choose not to waste the time of people I game with (who have lives, jobs, and loved ones) with outrageous encounters based on some misplaced idea of "realism", "naturalism", or whatever.
|
I choose not to waste the time of people I game with (who have lives, jobs, and loved ones) with outrageous encounters based on some misplaced idea of "realism", "naturalism", or whatever.
This is a perfect example of why the edition war won't die!
Someone on one side shoots a volley, then someone on the other sides feels the need to shoot back...
No, we are not fighting over editions here, but we are talking about ideas and preferences!
No need to feed the fires..
As for the example used...
In my campaigns, if the players hear rumors of dragons living in the nearby hills, and CHOOSE to go exploring said hills at low levels, then they may well encounter an adult dragon in that cave they go into...
Am I "wasting their time" by having them (who CHOSE to go looking in the first place) find what they are looking for?
Sure, sometimes an "accident" may happen and the players will stumble into an area that you have laid out as a dragons lair (or whatever nasty you have), and it is simple to not have them find it. But what happens if later they are hired or whatnot to kill this dragon (or what have you)? How do you explain why it was not there before (even though the king said it has been a thorn in the crown's side for generations)...
My players actually WANT this level of "realism"...
If you and yours don't, that's fine. I think you are missing out on a genuinely fulfilling style of play, but okay, your choice...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
James is my upcoming guest on the next Atomic Array podcast this coming Friday. He'll be talking about Thousand Suns, his space opera setting. Good stuff.
Sure, sometimes an "accident" may happen and the players will stumble into an area that you have laid out as a dragons lair (or whatever nasty you have), and it is simple to not have them find it. But what happens if later they are hired or whatnot to kill this dragon (or what have you)? How do you explain why it was not there before (even though the king said it has been a thorn in the crown's side for generations)...
I make a new cave and put the dragon there. I have a whole world I can work with. I don't map out the world and then say, "Well since I drew it already I can't change anything."
This is why we can't have nice conversations.
My credo is "live and let live" when it comes RPGs. That's not to say I don't have criticisms of, for example, 4e; obviously I do and I make no bones about them. However, I don't make a point of seeking out forums or threads where 4e fans are talking about their enjoyment of the game and make posts telling them what idiots they are for liking it, even when I think their comments about prior editions -- particularly OD&D and AD&D, my favorites -- are gravely mistaken. There's enough acrimony right now without making an effort to try and create more, which is why I generally keep to my blog or a handful of forums where I know my preferences and opinions won't be deemed fighting words.
I'm glad my thoughts were of interest and could spark some discussion, but I'm back to lurking. You know where I am if you want me :)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I choose not to waste the time of people I game with (who have lives, jobs, and loved ones) with outrageous encounters based on some misplaced idea of "realism", "naturalism", or whatever.
I think it's unfair for a DM to tell the 2nd-Level party wandering around in the Caves of Chaos, "You see before you an enormous creature, reptilian, with scales of gleaming crimson. It looks at you contemptuously and breathes fire. You all die this round."
I think it's completely fair to have NPCs tell the party, "Them mountains up there? That's where Zithromax the Red Dragon keeps her lair. If youse is sensible, you'll make a pilgrimmage up there and drop off some tithe of your spoils fer her." And, if the 2nd-Level party then decides to wander up there, armed and ready to kill whatever they find, they don't come back. Don't even bother to play out the encounter.
Of course, the NPCs could be lying, and could own the mine shaft at the bottom of the crevice people toss their gold into.
I think it's completely fair to have NPCs tell the party, "Them mountains up there? That's where Zithromax the Red Dragon keeps her lair. If youse is sensible, you'll make a pilgrimmage up there and drop off some tithe of your spoils fer her." And, if the 2nd-Level party then decides to wander up there, armed and ready to kill whatever they find, they don't come back. Don't even bother to play out the encounter.
Except a dragon would have to be pretty dim-witted to let the knowledge of their lair get around. So it would probably be in a very hard to find place and if anyone did find it, it would be unlikely they would live to tell about it. As Jack Sparrow said, "Where do the stories come from then, I wonder."
I hope this thread will continue with a discussion of the ideas bound up with naturalism in 3.5/d20/OGL rpging. Consider this as a plea for talking about relevant ideas, and not descending into personal back and forth. The latter won't accomplish anything, the former has been interesting, and may prove so further.
I ask this for reflection, not for a response: Who are you losing face with if someone supposedly scores a personal point on you in this thread? Certainly not I, and I venture, no one on these boards with half a brain. Will the other person feel respect for you that you defended yourself? Probably not. And surely your own self-worth does not depend on responding. It just drags the thread down, and runs off people with interesting things to say.
So please, keep the thread on productive subjects, not personal ones.
Thanks.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Except a dragon would have to be pretty dim-witted to let the knowledge of their lair get around.
It's quite possible to have a sneaky Red Dragon that tries to hide its lair.
It's also plausible to have a Red Dragon that's the toughest thing out there, and isn't afraid to raid nearby towns, demand tithes, and snatch up the occaissional maiden and carry her back to its lair for a snack.
(It's also possible to have a dull-witted dragon who's a lot less powerful than it thinks it is. But everybody's still afraid to death of it.)
The real world has cliffs. It's perfectly fair to allow a character to deliberately walk off a cliff, and simply declare her dead.
I am posting this with an intent to veer the conversation back towards this "new" concept of Gygaxian Naturalism (I love using that term; too bad no one outside of this forum has a flipping clue what it means). I think the red dragon scenario is a valid point to consider; more specifically, why would the dragon let knowledge of his lair out?
In the absence of Gygaxian Naturalism, idea's like Pres Man's are the only option one has: there is no "fluff," so issues concerned with "fluff" must either be ignored entirely, or the DM must create the "fluff." In this case, Pres Man has looked at the dragon's Intelligence and taken a prudent, cautious, and cunning approach to the subject. Another DM might read it differently. This opens up a realm of creative freedom perhaps unattainable with Gygaxian Naturalism (since it is effectively a mandate and thus must predispose certain choices in one way or another, therefore technically limiting freedom). Of course, one also runs the possibility of each DM's interpretation of the world being so different that they are inaccessible to new players; but that is probably a remote possibility on the whole. The larger problem is that many people don't want to take the time and effort, because they lack their own time or their own interest, in thinking about what each creature could be like. I would also hazard a guess that, devoid of further "fluff," in such a "crunch" heavy environment, one's interpretations of monsters would lean towards a mechanical, logistic approach (such as that forwarded by Pres Man).
However, the absence of Gygaxian Naturalism that is found in 4e does have another benefit; it allows for a more "relaxed" play atmosphere. You don't have to know or concern yourself with the lore and history of a game world, or the mindset and motivations of each orc tribe in a cavern. If you just want to hang out with friends while playing a game that is more engaging and stimulating than anything on a computer could ever be, this is for you.
I was going to follow up by posting how this would differ in a system with Gygaxian Naturalism as a guiding principle, but I think we all know that already, I don't want to risk a compare and contrast that may lean towards or be taken as Edition Wars fuel, and I don't have the time. So I'll just stop at this point, having illustrated at least some of the virtues of a more "gamist" system.
I guess I can see how adding anything (GN or not) theoretically limits freedom, I just don't see how it actually limits freedom. Freedom, after all, isn't the freedom to do anything, but the freedom to do something. The more "real" a world seems, the more real my freedom to do something, to risk consequences/to achieve something, seems.
I hope this doesn't strike you as intentionally dense, I just don't quite see what you mean.
|
|
Thanks, everyone, for getting our discussion back on track. Thanks, James M. for your additional comments and your fantastic essay that prompted our discussion.
I have a friend who has played since the mid-seventies. He grew up on the game and would argue that he "knows" how orcs behave, and "knows" what the average hill giant has in his sack. He is a man of strong conviction, and for the past 25 years I've played in his games. His settings have an unwaivering d&d "reality" to them, what James M. would call a pseudo-reality that follows "natural laws." For 25 years, regardless of the adventure story, his world (in many permutations) has ostensibly followed the same d&d constraints in its own coherent inner-reality.
Over the years, we talk occasionally about his world and its inhabitants (mostly during the weeks before one of his games) - no game session involved. As a shared mental construct, the game world exists for a reason beyond that which may or may not be encountered. I have learned much from him over the years about consistency, coherency, and sensibility of DMing a world that has a "reality" to it.
And this does not apply to just "one" particular game world that he has created, but rather it permeates all of his game worlds. He believes in the ideas once written down in the front of one of Gary G's DMGs...(don't remember the exact place...) the idea that d&d is one milieu really, with many possible permutations. My friend reminded me of this recently. And to his credit, I think he upholds the original ideals of the game (on the too far-right of the spectrum, however, for my tastes).
That said: I disagree with him regularly, calling him out on being too rigid or self-righteous, and find him to be too static and resistant to change for my tastes. But if you want to see d&d played out like it had been thirty years ago - this guy is able to reproduce the exact feel of the game at every turn.
On the related topic of Gygaxian Naturalism, I believe there is a spectrum of how rigid and how moderate a DM can be when adhering to this "constraint" that helps define opportunities for "freedoms" in our game. For example, I am a much more "modern gamer" than my friend however, both of us provide our players with thousands of more "freedoms" in terms of game options to select from, because our worlds have lives of their own. Our NPCs have agendas and intentions of their own. Drop in the player characters and whaaa-laa! Instant game, the stories practically write themselves, and maintain brilliant coherency and believable storylines within the "constraint" of Gygaxian naturalism. I am curious to know whether anyone believes this might be an act of discipline - and whether there are benefits to some of the self-imposed limits we place on ourselves to achieve game design that always "makes sense" when it does, and even when it does not.
- er, I hope I am making sense right now.....?
The nice thing about the little insignificant details, such as a monster being able to create wine, is that they can serve as plot hooks and inspiration. Some of the best DM-ing experiences I have had stemmed from these little and seemingly insignificant details. They are my inspiration. I guess I would miss these when I would be playing 4th edition.
The thing is my players would enslave said wine producing monsters and create their own winery. Profit is profit.
|
|
Nice article.
However, I would add two quick points about 'Gygaxian Naturalism':
First, Gygaxian fantasy is 'realistic' or 'naturalistic' only insofar as it accurately models the 'reality' depicted in pulp fantasy rather than the 'reality' that we are familiar withfrom the real world. Thus, Gygaxian fantasy includes lots of stuff that is blatantly 'unrealistic' by normal standards, but which works in the context of the genre.
Gygax is a simulationist insofar as his work simulates a specific literary subgenre. His personal interest was in the kind of fantasy that expemplified by Robert E. Howard, Fritz Leiber, Michael Moorcock, H.P. Lovecraft, and A. Merritt. This is why he included stuff like hit points and the Vancian magic system - they aren't 'realistic' in any absolute sense, but they work perfectly within the context of the pulp fantasy subgenre because they model genre conventions.
Secondly, it should be noted that Gygaxian naturalism is more art than science - the aim was to achieve the appearance of realism without being constrained by the need to slavishly simulate the reality of medieval life.
Whenever there was a conflict between realism and the needs of the story, Gygax chose to throw realism out the window.
This is why some of the classic 1e modules contain encounters that seem silly to modern sensibilities. But they usually work within the context of the game session because they are embedded in a setting that is otherwise fairly realistic.
If you look at the early work of Gygax carefully, you will find that often foreground details contain fantastic elements while the background context is very mundane. Thus, Gygax would place incredible encounters in a realistic context or fill incredible settings with comparatively mundane creatures.
This is how he got away with breaking the 'realism' of the setting - you can forgive the fact that the Caves of Chaos are packed with humanoids who hate each other because they each live in a lair decorated with mundane items and...
YES. I agree this was an excellent post. Prime Evil did a marvelous job building on the OP topic. Also, what still amazes me was Gary's ability to straddle the use of consistency and random surprise, his ability to make use of rules and abandon them wontonly as desired - all the while presenting the "appearance" of both consistency and coherency. If anyone has played in these types of games - the vision of the DM becomes the rules and written book rules are a secondary reference for the DM, not the players. In these games the DM focuses the players on the pseudo-realistic items at hand, giving a verisimilitude to many other fantastic things which would otherwise be a stretch to believe. Gygax's game play and story ruled at the table as an art! After 25 years, still not a bad thing to aspire to, eh?
|
|
Over the years, we talk occasionally about his world and its inhabitants (mostly during the weeks before one of his games) - no game session involved. As a shared mental construct, the game world exists for a reason beyond that which may or may not be encountered. I have learned much from him over the years about consistency, coherency, and sensibility of DMing a world that has a "reality" to it.
Hello Pax,
Thank you for this text. I believe the whole exchange highligted some change I felt over the years and editions.
In 1e, everything was brand new, and you were encouraged to be creative, and create your own world. I certainly did, several times.
The more things evolved, the less it was true. How many 3e supplements did you see about world-building ?
RPGS companies built their own worlds, and you were encouraged to buy them. thanks to this DMs started to worry more about adhering to canon, and less about creating their own stuff.
I can see the merits of both styles, though, I prefer by far the Gygaxian style.
regards
In 1e, everything was brand new, and you were encouraged to be creative, and create your own world. I certainly did, several times.
The more things evolved, the less it was true. How many 3e supplements did you see about world-building ?
RPGS companies built their own worlds, and you were encouraged to buy them. thanks to this DMs started to worry more about adhering to canon, and less about creating their own stuff.
I can see the merits of both styles, though, I prefer by far the Gygaxian style.
regards
Wasn't Gygax (at least partially) responsibly for the Greyhawk setting originally?
|
|
Wasn't Gygax (at least partially) responsibly for the Greyhawk setting originally?
Mostly, yeah...
He added a few aspects of other's worlds as well (Dave Arneson's Blackmore, and Lenard Lakofka's Lendor Islands)...
Do you use your own homebrew setting, or a pre-published one just out of curiosity...
I use The Forgotten Realms almost exclusively, which is why I have "set areas" for certain encounters...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Wasn't Gygax (at least partially) responsibly for the Greyhawk setting originally?Mostly, yeah...
He added a few aspects of other's worlds as well (Dave Arneson's Blackmore, and Lenard Lakofka's Lendor Islands)...
Do you use your own homebrew setting, or a pre-published one just out of curiosity...
I use The Forgotten Realms almost exclusively, which is why I have "set areas" for certain encounters...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I use my own homebrew usually, though I drop in set pieces here and there if I find them interesting.
I just was wondering because the previous post by Stereofm seemed to be indicating (to me at least) that "Gygaxian style" was not depending on published campaign settings. And yet Gygax was involved with setting up one of the first published campaign setting. Can something be "Gygaxian" and not be about Gygax?
|
|
Can something be "Gygaxian" and not be about Gygax?
Yes, I believe it can. I have little actual "table time" with his World of Greyhawk, yet (while admittedly, I had never heard the term until this thread) I have almost always used "Gygaxian Naturalism" within my campaigns...
As I stated before, both my players and myself enjoy playing in this kind of world, where, like in "real life", you have to be careful wherever you go lest you get into something beyond your abilities...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Yeah pres man, I think there is some ongoing fuzziness on exactly what is G.N. and we are gropping towards greater clarity. To be honest, I have leapt on what I understood from the article by JM, but that understanding is informed not only from my own peculiar circle of gamers,
Now, contrary to the general stream, there are connections to the real world that we inhabit that must be made. For example, we would be bothered if gravity did not operate, or if light behaved significantly differently, without in-world explanations for why. So it is not only the details that make the imaginative secondary world seem like a real place with an integrity of its own, but making those details and laws acceptable enough to us that we voluntarily suspend disbelief and don't experience so much cognitive dissonance that our imagination shuts down. So we theorize about the physiology of the dragon, even as we theorize about draconic magic. Not just anybody should be able to fling balls of fire around, but perhaps someone with a certain bloodline, mastery of an arcane language, the correct words, spell components, or bodily gestures, etc.
This may be more than you, or anybody, wanted, but I am working towards getting my own understanding clear, even as I am trying to navigate some of the issues that are raised by various posts, and your probings partially motivated me, so perhaps it will be of some interest.
I hope this doesn't strike you as intentionally dense, I just don't quite see what you mean.
To possibly contribute more than in my post yesterday, I am very glad that Mairkurion brought up good professor Tolkien's concepts of sub-creation. I think a question which might spur the search for "greater clarity" is how do these two concepts, Gygaxian Naturalism and Tolkien's sub-creation, relate? Are they actually one in the same? I don't think so. I think that sub-creation is a more basic, fundamental guideline that is in place when the first building blocks of a new world are laid down, and thus continues to permeate throughout the rest of that world's existence; while Gygaxian Naturalism comes in later, when the world is being peopled and populated (with NPCs and adventure locals and all the other hallmarks and necessities of a D&D game, in our case). Do others concur? If not, and you think the terms do contain distinct ideas, how do they differ?
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think that "naturalism" as we're describing it here, only exists during play. It's a question of what a DM lays out for the players, and it doesn't make sense to talk about "naturalism" without play. What would it be opposed to?
Tolkein's sub-creation exists internal to the creator. Whatever is written, told, or otherwise shared with other people isn't central to the idea.
|
|
I just was wondering because the previous post by Stereofm seemed to be indicating (to me at least) that "Gygaxian style" was not depending on published campaign settings. And yet Gygax was involved with setting up one of the first published campaign setting. Can something be "Gygaxian" and not be about Gygax?
Sure. In the same way that a story can be Lovecraftian or Tolkeinesque, and yet be written by someone else (like August Derleth or Robert Jordan) or one of Julie Bells paintings can be described as being like that of Boris Vallejo.
Thanks for this thread all,
After reading through it I bopped back to Paizo, over to Planet stories, off Henry Kutner's Dark World to his "Mimsy Were the Borogroves" on to Science Ficition Hall of Fame Volume One, and from there to Stanley Weinbaum's "A Martian Odyssey".
Thanks for the links. I just spent way too much time on Wikipedia, but I learned a ton.
In reading the wiki entry for said, I read these lines:
"Before, aliens had been nothing more than plot devices to help or hinder the hero. Weinbaum's creations, like the pyramid-builder and the cart creatures, have their own reasons for existing."
This was the most enlightening thing, though. As it applies to D&D, the importance of a thing’s existence does not lie solely in its interaction with the players. Sometimes a thing’s mere existence, or its behavior, can be vital in bringing the game world to life. The “pyramid-builders” and “cart creatures” are not meant to be interacted with, and especially not killed and looted. They’re presence and behavior can do much more to describe the world than what the five senses can detect. Part of what makes Ed Greenwood and the Forgotten Realms so popular, I think, is that his character descriptions go beyond sight and sound into the realm of passion and motivation. What makes any monster or character interesting and memorable is describing the “why”; and sometimes the lack thereof, as in the case of the “pyramid-builders” and “cart creatures”, can be what makes a monster or character memorable.
I think that "naturalism" as we're describing it here, only exists during play. It's a question of what a DM lays out for the players, and it doesn't make sense to talk about "naturalism" without play. What would it be opposed to?
Tolkein's sub-creation exists internal to the creator. Whatever is written, told, or otherwise shared with other people isn't central to the idea.
My thought here, Chris, is that you have brought up an important difference. In Tolkien's case, he was doing it all by himself. In a simplified example, let's say the DM is intially in this position, but however much she creates this world before she gets to the table, the world is not done in very significant ways until the players begin their contribution to it. So it is through play--in every session or gaming interaction--that the world is not merely shared like it is with a reader, but further created.
Saern has me thinking that what I am talking about, most fundamentally, is the most basic, fundamental sense of secondary reality that JRRT wrote about, and that G.N. may more properly be applied to game features that are born from a commitment to this fundamental, and thus provides mechancis and other game features that help the players to engage in this kind of world creation in their play. I think this would make G.N. a subset of that "inner consistency of reality" that makes up sub-creation. Thanks.
I just was wondering because the previous post by Stereofm seemed to be indicating (to me at least) that "Gygaxian style" was not depending on published campaign settings. And yet Gygax was involved with setting up one of the first published campaign setting. Can something be "Gygaxian" and not be about Gygax?Sure. In the same way that a story can be Lovecraftian or Tolkeinesque, and yet be written by someone else (like August Derleth or Robert Jordan) or one of Julie Bells paintings can be described as being like that of Boris Vallejo.
Right. Sorry for being less than clear. What I was trying to ask was, can something be considered "Gygaxian" and be in direct conflict with the deeds/products/views of Gygax? For example, if someone claims that company produced campaign settings is not "Gygaxian" but we know that Gygax helped to make one of the first company produced campaign settings.