4E's Rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism


3.5/d20/OGL

151 to 200 of 1,233 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Interesting. I'm persuaded by what everyone has said that naturalism is merely a style of gaming between the "poles" of the GNS theory. I think that my experience of the game and the discussions about the game, being younger, has influenced my opinions of simulationism differently; perhaps previously to the exclusion of elements which are very much a part of that gaming orientation. But I'm also curious: what are your opinions about the necessity of the mechanics to enforce naturalism? Are they essential, or can naturalism be supported without them?


Naturalism requires a high degree of internal consistency to pull off. If sometimes characters break bones when they fall, and other times they just get fatigued and bruised a bit (read: take straight hp damage), and there's absolutely no determinor between the two other than story needs, then the "game world" becomes an arbitrary and "unreal" place. So, the referee is obliged to follow through: if someone breaks his leg falling into a pit, there needs to be a chance that other people might, too. A new rule is born! Naturalism, by its nature, spawns "rules" because of the need for internal consistency over evolving story.

We've discussed many examples in other threads: the queen's one blow auto-kill of a prepared, high-level ranger (in the 2nd Pathfinder AP) is a noteworthy example. As a scene, it's a narritivist triumph, but its violation of existing "standards" grated strongly on a few of us who run games that are a lot more heavily grounded in the "naturalism" area of the spectrum.

Sovereign Court

Chris Mortika wrote:

I think it's more important that there be details like giants have bags with random, non-adventure stuff in them" than how the DM determines just what stuff is there: a pre-written table, a DM-written table, or DM fiat when preparing the adventure...)

Chris' last post shows some great synthesis of the ideas we've been discussing. As I've mentioned, my original DM and friend of over 25 years "knows" what is in the hill giants sack. And in his own somewhat rigid and somewhat arrogant view, he belives he "knows" how to DM the way it was originally "meant-to-be-played". By contrast I'm the type of DM that will use my own written table or a pre-written table. In every case, and regardless of my friends arrogance - I believe we're delivering on Gygaxian Naturalism because the stuff in the bag is there as an extention of the pseudo-realism of the lives of the hill giants that live in the Paeltor Hills, just beyond the Wanderer's Rift in my homebrew realm. Or, my friend's game, based on the time of day in-game, he may deem that the giants have hunks of meat in their sacks because they have been hunting (an act that occurs prior to any interaction with the PCs).

Consider: I have one player who has "Gamist" written on his brain and each week he asks something like, "That's it? That's all that's in the bag? Have you forgotten the half-orc armorsmith of Skullmourn is crafting me a custom suit of plate armor that I need to pay for!?" Based on our discussion here, is it possible he is a Gamist player who either rejects Gygaxian Naturalism or does not understand it? Instead, is this causing him to "expect" particular treasure to be afforded him based on his time/effort/game achievements? Mind-you, I am not a stingy DM... I leaned over to him as a player and said quietly, "You know, this party has acqured over 24,300 gp worth of money, gems, items and magic on this adventure arc alone - remember, it was the Priest of Urdanzer (another PC) who donated, sold or traded much of it for charity, trade or information. You'll need to take it up with him if you don't approve of his leadership style, or his party-wealth-economics."

To throw in a few more concepts into our dialogue: Have I tapped into this Naturalism already? My worlds run as though they're real worlds, regardless whether I've chosen high or low fantasy, high or low magic, or high or low realism. My adventures run with smooth consistency by using its own internal pseudo-reality. And, I wonder, is the pseudo-reality it emulates, regardless of theme/place/setting/world is truly Gygaxian insomuchas I adhere to using "naturalistic" orcs, and I won't stray from the guidelines of the game's traditional "fluff" and "sacred cows" unless absolutely essential to the story?

As I mentioned, I am more open-minded than my stalwart friend, so I am willing to use OGL beasts like Troblins out of Tome of Horrors that somewhat violate the "natural" order of genetic sensibilties of OD&D.

So in all honesty, based on James M's and Chris Mortika's comments, am I hitting the mark? Seriously, I want to know. Believe me, I know the point is to have fun - so I am not somehow striving in my games for the ultimate methodology, however, I would like to be self-aware and clear enough to know exactly what I am doing to be able to improve it continuously, or move it in a direction that stretches by ability while still targeting Gygaxian Naturalism and the traditions carried through to 3rd edition from Gary's original vision.

And finally:

Chris Mortika wrote:

((I think it's more telling that in Naturalism, once you decide to let the dice speak, you listen to them. Once you decide that, in this kind of reality you're simulating, there's a chance that resurrection spells might not work, you need to roll that system shock survival roll. Once you decide that tomato soup might contains rubies, you need to adhere to the ruby-in-soup roll.))

But "out there" means "in the DM's head" rather than "in whatever supplements the DM owns." It's entirely possible to run a Gygaxian Naturalist campaign without buying a lick of commercial "campaign setting" materials. (Gygax did...)

I am currently polishing what I hope to be my first published article. In it I explain the compared percentile roll that I "listened to" for over 20 years - a mechanic that simulates a random reality to determine the very existence of items in the world. Once rolled, the roll impacts the reality of the game. Without going into too much detail - If a player askes, "are there some small pebbles in this room that I could use as ammunition for my sling?", I will leave that to the dice, and once determined I will adhere to their ruling on-the-fly.

My point in sharing this... Chris Mortika makes an excellent case for running something with Naturalism regardless of the merchandizing/supplements used. So then ... I'm asking, is Gygaxian Naturalism also a style of game execution, a method of in-game spontaneous design, and a coherent baseline of traditional sensibilities that have generally governed our 0E through v.3.5/d20/OGL games?


Hierarch of Gygaxian Naturalism wrote:
Noisily scarfs down pulpy goodness of thread.

I concur. Good stuff here! :)

-The Gneech


Chris Mortika wrote:

A couple of observations and questions:

1) From my perspective: GNS Theory delineates three "poles" of Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist, and what we're discussing, Naturalism, is a spot somewhere on that territory, rather than a fourth pole.

I think most people are comfortable placing Gygaxian Naturalism somewhere midways between the Narr. and Simul. poles, and somewhat further away from Gam. (Not all the way on the other side of the field; again, drow, and perhaps also the fact that dungeons are supposed to have higher "level" monsters the deeper they go.)

Does this square with your interpretations of the terms?

Part of the problem is that Gygax did not intentionally engage in 'Gygaxian Naturalism'. Its a theme that comes out in his gaming style but probably not one he was particularly conscious of and adhering to. Hence all the exceptions that abound and the difficulty in pinning the term down.

Chris Mortika wrote:


2) Indulging Gygaxian Naturalism is very "cheap" from a Gamist perspective: unlike the extremes of Narrativism and Simulationism, you can get Naturalism by a couple of paragraphs at the beginning of a module and a few incidental details throughout the adventure.

I'd not agree that this is Gygaxian Naturalism per se. We get this very strongly in say a 2nd edition Ravonloft adventure but I'd say Ravanloft with its strong emphasis on shaping the circumstances in order to scare the players is something of an antithesis to Gygaxian Naturalism.

When I think of Gygaxian Naturalism its not really exceptions like the Drow that I'd focus on but themes that emphasize an authentic feeling for the setting, especially the dungeon setting were most of the action took place, and the use of tables to do that.

The idea that a dungeon, jungle ruin, lost island existed without the players and they just happen to have shown up. Most of the classic adventures that he created were essentially onions. There would be a first layer that everyone would be able to go through and solve. Then there was one or more significant secrets that could be discovered by a party. Finally there was usually some kind of super secret that was really really difficult to uncover. Something so estoric that only a small number of groups would actually pull it off in game. Those that did had some impressive bragging rights. The point here is that in Gygaxian Naturalism the focus in on the player but the world operates in without real reference to them. Secrets are not meant to be found by the players - but skilled players might with a lot of thought and some luck find the secrets.

I don't see good writing prose as being part of this - any style game, pretty much, can have good writing.

Chris Mortika wrote:


I'm wondering about all the non-D&D games out in the early 80's, from Gamma World and Boot Hill to all the Fantasy Games Unlimited suite, Runequest, and RoleMaster. Do some of those rules systems fit Naturalism better than others?

Once we have brought GNS theory into the discussion I'd tend to avoid bring other systems besides D&D into the discussion as well. I suspect that most of us more or less agree on what GNS system means as it applies to D&D. There is probably a fairly broad consensus on that. If we start adding other systems into the discussion then the discussion itself breaks down because I don't think there is much consensus on what GNS means when applied to all systems. If I say Toon is a simulationist game we are going to get into all sorts of arguments but its pretty irrelevant since we are not really talking about Toon and we all probably are pretty close to agreement when one starts arguing about simulationism in D&D.

Chris Mortika wrote:


{And, if random determination is an important facet, then that, too; but I'm not yet sure that's true. I think it's more important that there be details like giants have bags with random, non-adventure stuff in them" than how the DM determines just what stuff is there: a pre-written table, a DM-written table, or DM fiat when preparing the adventure...)

((I think it's more telling that in Naturalism, once you decide to let the dice speak, you listen to them. Once you decide that, in this kind of reality you're simulating, there's a chance that resurrection spells might not work, you need to roll that system shock survival roll. Once you decide that tomato soup might contains rubies, you need to adhere to the ruby-in-soup roll.))

If your just doing DM fiat to determine everything that does not strike me as by Gygaxian in terms of naturalism. I'm not even sure why we would call that naturalism at all. That sounds like your being very detailed in your approach but whats naturalistic about that? Could I not easily do that in a purely gamist system? Is that not what I would almost always do if I'm GMing a really narrativist game?

The tables create authenticity by taking the focus off the players. They don't necessarily get what they want and the world does not revolve around them. Instead the world just is and they interact with it. That said when you emphasize that you listen when the dice speak, well that to me is very much Gygaxian Naturalism. If wading through the filth in a rats nest looking for treasure means that there is a 20% chance of contracting a disease then the dice roll is final. Either your players did or you did not get a disease and party composition plays no part in that roll - it does not matter if your party can or cannot easily handle a disease, thats not a consideration that is taken into account.


The reason I feel the term "Gygaxian" Naturalism is too narrow is, as another poster already said, there may be other types of naturalism as well. Now, since it seems we're having some disagreements about other topics, I'd first like to hear what your ideas on this are. What are other types of naturalism can you identify? What separates them from Gygaxian? Just to give a little direction, there was mention of Krynn having its own style of naturalism. Okay, then, can you explicate those differences? And, I'm still curious, is it possible to have a more narrativist-based naturalism; an internal consistency that isn't based in mechanics?

Sovereign Court

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
There would be a first layer that everyone would be able to go through and solve. Then there was one or more significant secrets that could be discovered by a party. Finally there was usually some kind of super secret that was really really difficult to uncover.

...ah... so true.

As I reflect it seems, I use the second layer and third layer as story-weaving/plot-threading devices. In modular series adventures, sometimes these secondary layers became continuations... I think I've seen this most recently in the D0, D1, D1.5 series from PAIZO. However, I think I am guilty of extending the outer layer of the onion over too long a time, and guilty of inserting too many adventure seeds/secrets into the "exposition" portion of my campaign. Usually the first 12 sessions contain all the seeds I need to run another 100 adventures. I'm not saying this is the way to do things - but if my players make it through the complex confusion of the exposition, they'll be crusing for a long time with many inter-woven adventure arcs playing out at once.

In a modern sense, I see the story-arc/story-weaving approach part and parcel of what Pathfinder Chronicles is offering, now even more reloaded with "set pieces." I see this as a reflection of the Gygaxian techniques of layering secrets that Jeremy is astutely mentioning.


Saern wrote:
What are other types of naturalism can you identify? What separates them from Gygaxian?

Ooh, can I have a "Gersenian Naturalism?"


Pax Veritas wrote:

To throw in a few more concepts into our dialogue: Have I tapped into this Naturalism already? My worlds run as though they're real worlds, regardless whether I've chosen high or low fantasy, high or low magic, or high or low realism. My adventures run with smooth consistency by using its own internal pseudo-reality. And, I wonder, is the pseudo-reality it emulates, regardless of theme/place/setting/world is truly Gygaxian insomuchas I adhere to using "naturalistic" orcs, and I won't stray from the guidelines of the game's traditional "fluff" and "sacred cows" unless absolutely essential to the story?

As I mentioned, I am more open-minded than my stalwart friend, so I am willing to use OGL beasts like Troblins out of Tome of Horrors that somewhat violate the "natural" order of genetic sensibilties of OD&D.

So in all honesty, based on James M's and Chris Mortika's comments, am I hitting the mark? Seriously, I want to know. Believe me, I know the point is to have fun - so I am not somehow striving in my games for the ultimate methodology, however, I would like to be self-aware and clear enough to know exactly what I am doing to be able to improve it continuously, or move it in a direction that stretches by ability while still targeting Gygaxian Naturalism and the traditions carried through to 3rd edition from Gary's original vision.

I am currently polishing what I hope to be my first published article. In it I explain the compared percentile roll that I "listened to" for over 20 years - a mechanic that simulates a random reality to determine the very existence of items in the world. Once rolled, the roll impacts the reality of the game. Without going into too much detail - If a player askes, "are there some small pebbles in this room that I could use as ammunition for my sling?", I will leave that to the dice, and once determined I will adhere to their ruling on-the-fly.

My point in sharing this... Chris Mortika makes an excellent case for running something with Naturalism regardless of the merchandizing/supplements used. So then ... I'm asking, is Gygaxian Naturalism also a style of game execution, a method of in-game spontaneous design, and a coherent baseline of traditional sensibilities that have generally governed our 0E through v.3.5/d20/OGL games?

I think this somewhat depends on what you mean by Gygaxian Naturalism.

I think there are essentially two threads running through your post.

***

Gygaxian Methodology - the use of tables to enhance authenticity. Rules and rulings that don't have anything to do with the players but are simply aspects of the world at large. The creation of adventures that are internally consistent and not modified one way or another simply because your players party does or does not have a Paladin. Adventures that have secrets that might or might not be discovered by the players.

Authenticity is the key here even if it trumps story.

***

Gygaxian Cannon - This is adherence to Gygax's original view of the monsters and their themes and of the Great Wheel Cosmology. Kobolds are fecund little dogmen, Mind Flayers plot to extinguish the sun and there are hints that that they are either from the future or the past but they are deffinitly not from this time line. Drow are led by powerful woman and they are always evil. They worship the Goddess Lolth.

***

Its perfectly possible to adhere to one of these aspects and not another. One can run old Style World of Greyhawk with Kobolds as they were originally meant to be run and choose not to use Gygax's methodology for running the world. Maybe you choose to run a narrativist style game of intrigue in the Great Kingdom.

On the other hand one can adhere closely to Gygaxian Methodology in terms of creating a very authentic world and using lots or random tables to create these elements but not adhere to Gygaxian Cannon. Possibly you want to use Roger Moores cunning trap building kobolds or even make them the littlest dragons.

It is also, of course conceivable to use both, adhering to 1E cannon and methodology or, conversely, choosing to adhere neither to Gygaxian Cannon nor Methodology.

And most likely its something of a buffet - many DMs, especially old school DMs, use some elements of both Gygaxian Cannon and Gygaxian Methodology but I suspect only a very few purists really adhere to all elements of both. Especially considering how difficult this is in light of Gygax himself not strictly adhering to all the elements of both - these were trends he used in world and adventure design as opposed to absolute rules and they reflect his personal preferences and not some kind of absolute truth.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

When I wrote:

(And, if random determination is an important facet, then that, too; but I'm not yet sure that's true. I think it's more important that there be details like giants have bags with random, non-adventure stuff in them" than how the DM determines just what stuff is there: a pre-written table, a DM-written table, or DM fiat when preparing the adventure...)

((I think it's more telling that in Naturalism, once you decide to let the dice speak, you listen to them. Once you decide that, in this kind of reality you're simulating, there's a chance that resurrection spells might not work, you need to roll that system shock survival roll. Once you decide that tomato soup might contains rubies, you need to adhere to the ruby-in-soup roll.))

Jeremy then wrote:
If you're just doing DM fiat to determine everything, that does not strike me as Gygaxian Naturalism. I'm not even sure why we would call that naturalism at all. That sounds like you're being very detailed in your approach but what's naturalistic about that? Could I not easily do that in a purely gamist system? Is that not what I would almost always do if I'm GMing a really narrativist game?

It depends on what's in the bag! If I put bread and rocks in there because I think the giant is on a trip and would have brought along food, and ought to have some rocks for killing things, then I'm being a simulationist.

If I put bread and a potion of healing in there, because I figure the PC will be hungry and injured after defeating the giant, then I'm being a gamist.

If I put bread and a letter to the High Jarl in there, because I want to party to visit the High Jarl's stead, then I'm being narrativist.

But if there's a random chart of "likely bag items", and I roll on that chart, I honestly don't see what the difference is between that and sticking bread and rocks in there by fiat.

What if my list read: "01 - 97: Bread and Rocks; 98 - 99: Roll again; 100 - Roll twice, ignoring this result."

What if I rolled my result ahead of time and the PC never knew that such a list existed at all?

If the DM always rolls honestly and never fudges, should it matter that she rolls in front of her players, that they see both the roll and the chart?

Or is the following exchange in the spirit of your ideal of Naturalism:
Player I search through the muck in the sewers.
DM: That evening, you come down with a serious infection.
Player What? Why?
DM: That happens sometimes.

Here's an issue. I will sometimes include clues and portents and details for my PC, and --at the time-- have no idea why.

DM: you kill the fire giant. In his bag you find bread and a small onyx gem, inscribed with an unfamiliar, angular rune.
Player: I hold it up to the light of the obelisk.
DM: It's a loaf of cracked wheat --
Player: No, the gem.
DM:A magic mouth forms and says "M'naar."

If you'd asked me at that moment what the hell that was, I wouldn't have been able to tell you. But it felt right, and I suspect it might lead to an interesting adventure, if the party decides to pursue it.

Jeremy wrote:
The tables create authenticity by taking the focus off the players. They don't necessarily get what they want and the world does not revolve around them. Instead the world just is and they interact with it. That said when you emphasize that you listen when the dice speak, well that to me is very much Gygaxian Naturalism. If wading through the filth in a rats nest looking for treasure means that there is a 20% chance of contracting a disease then the dice roll is final. Either your players did or you did not get a disease and party composition plays no part in that roll - it does not matter if your party can or cannot easily handle a disease, thats not a consideration that is taken into account.

I agree, but that sounds entirely simulationist.

Oh, and, Jeremy: "canon", not "cannon".

Sovereign Court

Pax Veritas wrote:
So in all honesty, based on James M's and Chris Mortika's comments, am I hitting the mark?

Pax, If your players keep showing up ... you ARE hitting the mark !

Best :)

Dark Archive

Chris Mortika wrote:

DM: you kill the fire giant. In his bag you find bread and a small onyx gem, inscribed with an unfamiliar, angular rune.

Player: I hold it up to the light of the obelisk.
DM: It's a loaf of cracked wheat --
Player: No, the gem.
DM:A magic mouth forms and says "M'naar."

I lol'ed..

I must say, this thread is just a treasure trove of information. I got into DnD only 6.5 years ago, and as such, have only really known 3e and beyond. With that said, i find pre-3e very interesting. So much so, that i searched for the ODnD pdf's on some website and paid for the 'core' set, plus the first couple 'additions'. I now own hard copies of the 2e dmg and phb, as well as the monstrous compendium(?), and some of the race and class 'handbooks', and a couple campaign setting specific items. Although i've never played anything other than 3e+, i find the information from previous editions invaluable.


Chris Mortika wrote:


It depends on what's in the bag! If I put bread and rocks in there because I think the giant is on a trip and would have brought along food, and ought to have some rocks for killing things, then I'm being a simulationist.

If I put bread and a potion of healing in there, because I figure the PC will be hungry and injured after defeating the giant, then I'm being a gamist.

If I put bread and a letter to the High Jarl in there, because I want to party to visit the High Jarl's stead, then I'm being narrativist.

But if there's a random chart of "likely bag items", and I roll on that chart, I honestly don't see what the difference is between that and sticking bread and rocks in there by fiat.

I'd say the difference is that the chart also contains some really cool stuff. Might not be likely but there is always that chance. After all who really knows what a giant keeps in his sack?

Chris Mortika wrote:


What if my list read: "01 - 97: Bread and Rocks; 98 - 99: Roll again; 100 - Roll twice, ignoring this result."

Then your perverting the spirit of this methodology and in so doing destroying its utility. The whole point is to create realistic feeling weighted tables and then let random chance determine what one actually finds. This method creates authenticity which is what is being striven for.

Chris Mortika wrote:


What if I rolled my result ahead of time and the PC never knew that such a list existed at all?

If the DM always rolls honestly and never fudges, should it matter that she rolls in front of her players, that they see both the roll and the chart?

I don't see why it matters if the dice are rolled in front of the players or not. Who the heck determined what was in the Dragons Hoard after the PCs killed the Dragon? Certainly not me. It is, however important that your players understand that there are random tables being used to determine whats going on and that you stick to those tables for good or ill. This not only helps to create authenticity but maybe more importantly it tells the players that the DM is not just being an ass hat when they find a Quall's Feather Token in two seperate monster hoards. It was just fate and there is nothing to be done (unless your playing 3rd - then you sell the damn things).

Chris Mortika wrote:


Or is the following exchange in the spirit of your ideal of Naturalism:
Player I search through the muck in the sewers.
DM: That evening, you come down with a serious infection.
Player What? Why?
DM: That happens sometimes.

Wow. Its like you've played at my table. I'm getting all teary.

Yes I'd say this is very much Gygaxian Naturalism. Note that if the players are smart they can probably deduce what they did that got them the disease. That said, one of the reasons I think Gygaxian Naturalism is not as popular as it used to be is because its ever harder to discern what it is you did to cause this consequence. If your only playing for four hours a week and you searched the filthy rats nest 3 weeks ago it starts to get really hard and some what unreasonable to presume that the players can discern that their actions have consequences that might only become apparent in later sessions.

Chris Mortika wrote:


Here's an issue. I will sometimes include clues and portents and details for my PC, and --at the time-- have no idea why.

DM: you kill the fire giant. In his bag you find bread and a small onyx gem, inscribed with an unfamiliar, angular rune.
Player: I hold it up to the light of the obelisk.
DM: It's a loaf of cracked wheat --
Player: No, the gem.
DM:A magic mouth forms and says "M'naar."

If you'd asked me at that moment what the hell that was, I wouldn't have been able to tell you. But it felt right, and I suspect it might lead to an interesting adventure, if the party decides to pursue it.

Well I'd say this is fine and all but I'd not call it Gygaxian Naturalism.

Jeremy Sez wrote:


The tables create authenticity by taking the focus off the players. They don't necessarily get what they want and the world does not revolve around them. Instead the world just is and they interact with it. That said when you emphasize that you listen when the dice speak, well that to me is very much Gygaxian Naturalism. If wading through the filth in a rats nest looking for treasure means that there is a 20% chance of contracting a disease then the dice roll is final. Either your players did or you did not get a disease and party composition plays no part in that roll - it does not matter if your party can or cannot easily handle a disease, thats not a consideration that is taken into account.
Chris Mortika wrote:


I agree, but that sounds entirely simulationist.

...and I'd argue 'very Gygaxian'.

Chris Mortika wrote:


Oh, and, Jeremy: "canon", not "cannon".

I'll try and remember that but no promises.


Saern wrote:
The reason I feel the term "Gygaxian" Naturalism is too narrow is, as another poster already said, there may be other types of naturalism as well. Now, since it seems we're having some disagreements about other topics, I'd first like to hear what your ideas on this are. What are other types of naturalism can you identify? What separates them from Gygaxian? Just to give a little direction, there was mention of Krynn having its own style of naturalism. Okay, then, can you explicate those differences? And, I'm still curious, is it possible to have a more narrativist-based naturalism; an internal consistency that isn't based in mechanics?

I'd say if you wanted Naturalism but not neccisarly Gygaxian Naturalism then you need to find a way of creating authenticity. Particularly authenticity without reference to the players.

For example lets suppose you have a wide collection of Dungeon Magazines and other adventure modules. You could design a region of your world and populate it with varous groups with varous agenda's. Then scatter adventures across your region. Weave the plots together somewhat (though there should be many separate plots going on). The key is to do all of this before you know what kinds of characters your players are going to make. This way the treasure that will be found, the challenges that will be faced, and the plot lines that are taking place don't reference your players at all.

Once your players have made their characters they can do as they please and follow up on the varous adventure hooks that are built into the region you have created. In this way you have your players interacting in the world but the world is not about them at all. The world just is and they are free to do as they please inside it.

In this case you've substituted Adventure Modules for random tables but, so long as you don't modify those adventure modules to reflect your players party composition or personal tastes you've still got a very authentic feeling region. Your players react to the reality of the world as it is, as opposed to the world reacting to them as they are.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
For example lets suppose you have a wide collection of Dungeon Magazines and other adventure modules. Weave the plots together somewhat (though there should be many separate plots going on). The key is to do all of this before you know what kinds of characters your players are going to make. This way the treasure that will be found, the challenges that will be faced, and the plot lines that are taking place don't reference your players at all. Once your players have made their characters they can do as they please and follow up on the varous adventure hooks that are built into the region you have created. In this way you have your players interacting in the world but the world is not about them at all. The world just is and they are free to do as they please inside it.

That's more or less exactly what I did with the Age of Worms, Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk, and my homebrew campaign. I don't know if it was any kind of "naturalism," but it sure was fun!


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Saern wrote:
The reason I feel the term "Gygaxian" Naturalism is too narrow is, as another poster already said, there may be other types of naturalism as well. Now, since it seems we're having some disagreements about other topics, I'd first like to hear what your ideas on this are. What are other types of naturalism can you identify? What separates them from Gygaxian? Just to give a little direction, there was mention of Krynn having its own style of naturalism. Okay, then, can you explicate those differences? And, I'm still curious, is it possible to have a more narrativist-based naturalism; an internal consistency that isn't based in mechanics?

I'd say if you wanted Naturalism but not neccisarly Gygaxian Naturalism then you need to find a way of creating authenticity. Particularly authenticity without reference to the players.

For example lets suppose you have a wide collection of Dungeon Magazines and other adventure modules. You could design a region of your world and populate it with varous groups with varous agenda's. Then scatter adventures across your region. Weave the plots together somewhat (though there should be many separate plots going on). The key is to do all of this before you know what kinds of characters your players are going to make. This way the treasure that will be found, the challenges that will be faced, and the plot lines that are taking place don't reference your players at all.

Once your players have made their characters they can do as they please and follow up on the varous adventure hooks that are built into the region you have created. In this way you have your players interacting in the world but the world is not about them at all. The world just is and they are free to do as they please inside it.

In this case you've substituted Adventure Modules for random tables but, so long as you don't modify those adventure modules to reflect your players party composition or personal tastes you've still got a very authentic feeling region. Your players...

Would you then have to randomly select which parts to focus on? I mean if you subjectively pick bits and pieces, I don't see how that is much different than making stuff up that you find interesting.


Jerry Wright wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
If (no assumptions here), if, you are referring to 3e (in any incarnation), then I would have to disagree with the "too many stifling rules" comment...
I wasn't referring to any particular system. 3E and 3.5 are rules-heavy, but so were 1E and 2E. And for what it's worth, 4E isn't an improvement. I hesitate to voice a real opinion about it for fear of fire, but I have to say that I GM the same way regardless of the system, and I don't feel stifled by any incarnation of D&D.

Yes, this is my experience: that you look at the rules (and other game features) to see what they can tell you about the world, and you look at the world to see what effects they need to have on the rules/etc. A difference, for example, in a provided DC makes a difference in how you narrate the challenge, or a described challenge effects the DC you assign it. The idea, for example, of dealing with a trap just by the numbers, instead of by the description given in game and only using the numbers to resolve outcome (which even then might need a +/- circumstance modifer based on player responses), would be very strange to me. (One of my reactions to the very thought-provoking primer that Prime Evil & Chris posted for us.)

Spoiler:
Full disclosure: Can't honestly say whether I would feel *stifled* by 4e, since I haven't played it.


Pax Veritas wrote:

three categories:

Gamist Narrativist Simulationist

Right...I guess the various discussions of these three that I have seen so far haven't left me convinced that they've got the bear by the tail. Setting, plot, and theme are all narrative elements (characterization might deserve mention as well). It would seem particularly difficult to separate the themes, say, of either Tolkien or Morcock from the plot, the setting, and the characters. While they can receive focus separately in analysis, they only exist together in the narrative, and when you pull them apart, you no longer have the story, but a piece of (dead) criticism.

To the practical: If someone complains that their DM is being "narrativist," aren't they really complaining that they are being rail-roaded? That the world is one that does not feel shared because they are too passive, and if it feels real, it at least feels like they have no real effect on it, so that they are reduced to spectators? If this is true, then it goes along with my theoretical reflection above. Are these theorists analyzing the social dynamics of the game, and confusing the social with the "formal" (the only term that comes to me at the moment) elements by the names they are giving them?
Spoiler:
Perhaps they themselves aren't confused, but the choice of terms succeed in confusing everyone else...still, their choice seems odd.
If so, then talking about GMs vs Players is not talking about naturalism per se, though their interaction would effect how naturalism is or is not created and shared.
Spoiler:
If it is social dynamics that are being analyzed, why not describe the behaviors? Competition, Domination, Collaboration. Maybe I am being too cheeky, since my interest isn't really in this direction.

If we do take GNS as dimensions or emphases of rping, then it seems to me that naturalism is shared by both gamist and narrativist dimensions: do the challenges seem realistic to the secondary world, and are they presented in such a way that our this-worldly objections are kept at bay? (The same with the ways of meeting these challenges.) Do the themes and the plot seem true to the world? (For example, imagine how Moorcock's despair would play out in Middle Earth, our how jarring Tolkien's providence would feel in the presence of Arioch.)

Now, if we replaced GNS with narrative theory in trying to analyze rpging, what would happen? I think you'll get my drift, so I will leave it at that.

Liberty's Edge

but, what if, and i know this is crazy, we REALLY should be focusing on gygaxian existentialism?


houstonderek wrote:
but, what if, and i know this is crazy, we REALLY should be focusing on gygaxian existentialism?

You mean, what comes first, Gygax or Essence?

Or perhaps you answered your question in your very mode of asking it...

Actually Saern had a great question in there, and I am curious to see if anybody thinks they have an answer for it.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

So far, I haven't seen any discussion about whether the type of play we're more or less defining as Gygaxian Naturalism is a "good" or "right" way to play the game.

Let me offer that any group of friends who are having fun, are playing the game right. If you think that this is the kind of game your friends will like, then give it a shot, and if you're right, then it's all good.

But.

I think there are reasons that the hobby, as a whole, moved away from the naturalism we're describing. Some of those reasons have to do with fashion and nothing more. Narrative style (DragonLance, Ravenloft, and to lesser extents the Forgotten Realms and Dark Sun) became trendy. People who played Magic were coming over to D&D with more of a gamist attitude towards "building" your characters.

But, in other ways, it takes a certain type of person to like being randomly blessed (aha! the treasure includes something you can use) and randomly screwed over (and there are ... 98 orcs in the room). To be reasonably certain that, at some point, the dice would turn against you, and you'd fail the system shock survival roll, or the DM would run you into an encounter far above your ability to fight or even flee; or you'd miss one of the dozen disarm traps rolls, or the saving throw versus death magic, or ...

It takes a particular type of player to enjoy marching a long-time character into the Tomb of Horrors.

That kind of unpleasantness happens in a strict simulationist campaign, as well, because those camapigns try to present a separate reality which goes on, independent of the PCs in some ways, reacting to party actions in other ways.

But we're discussing a style where random rolling means nobody's to blame when really bad luck happens. And in a simulationist campaign --where the DM decides what's in rooms, which NPCs have what possessions, and how they're going about their plans, all without recourse to random encounter tables, random treasure set-ups, or other charts-- there's actual blame to go around; to DM's who fail to give out enough clues for PC's to act sensibly, or to players for failing to notice them.

If I'm DMing, and one of my players starts taking lots of feats in some odd weapon, like, say, voulge, then both gamist and narrativist DMs will make sure that a magic voulge comes up in the next couple of treasures, or there will be a magic-voulge-wielding madman. A simulationist will perhaps stick a voulge in a treasure trove, and plant rumors about it, in response to the player's requests, "Hey, know where there's a voulge we can steal?"

In the kind of naturalism we're discussing, that character may never get the weapon that interests him, because it never comes up. It's random.

Naturalism is probably a really good term for it. French naturalism in theatre is a kind of realism that positively rejects free will, suggesting that life really is random events.

But, I want to emphasize, if it's what you want, andit's what your players like, then it's the way to go.

Liberty's Edge

Warning to Kirth: um, the above (chris' post) is how i dm. i'm stuck on that 1e feeling ;)

chris: yeah, i don't like to get into "right or wrong" discussions concerning gaming, well, other than to defend that how i play isn't "wrong". i don't begrudge anyone playing any way they want.

however, my first gaming experience was with AD&D in 1979, so the "gygaxian" sensibilities have pretty much stuck. this extends to AD&D style disruption of spell casters, AD&D spell descriptions and effects (fireball is a volume spell, dagnabbit!), and a world that just is what it is, not "scaled" to the characters. i still use the old DMG tables for inspiration (i can't help it, the random prostitute table is the single greatst thing in rpgs EVER - brazen strumpet indeed!) and don't give a rats a$$ what a character took as a primary weapon when figuring out what could be found on the bad guys...

sometimes i meet a bit of resistance from younger players who only know 3x, but after a while, most come to enjoy adventuring in a world where you have to consider what it would be like to live in a place with dragons and powerful magic that don't wait until it is "level appropriate" to make themselves known.

but then, i'm a crusty old codger, set in my ways...


pres man wrote:
Would you then have to randomly select which parts to focus on? I mean if you subjectively pick bits and pieces, I don't see how that is much different than making stuff up that you find interesting.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying?

I don't know that I would pick parts to focus on. Presumably after you've done the design work the players get to choose what they want to follow up on themselves and this aspect is no longer really in the DMs hands.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Right...I guess the various discussions of these three that I have seen so far haven't left me convinced that they've got the bear by the tail. Setting, plot, and theme are all narrative elements (characterization might deserve mention as well). It would seem particularly difficult to separate the themes, say, of either Tolkien or Morcock from the plot, the setting, and the characters. While they can receive focus separately in analysis, they only exist together in the narrative, and when you pull them apart, you no longer have the story, but a piece of (dead) criticism.

Which is why I think we ought to avoid bring novels and other RPGs or media into the equation when using this terminology. That leads to lots of confusion.

However if we just keep the discussion focused on D&D then I don't think there is much of an issue with using this sort of terminology because, when it comes to D&D, I think there is a moderately broad consensus about what is meant by Simulationism, Narrativism and Gamism.

For example see Chris Motka's example of different ~isms in terms of what the DM places in a Giants sack. Personally I'm in complete agreement with his use of GNS as it relates to D&D in that series of examples and I I don't think many would disagree.

Once you start trying to decide where Tolkien or Morcock stand in relation to GNS terminology however I think your heading for a quagmire.

Dark Archive

@OP. The reduction on naturalism doesn't just impact monsters in 4th edition, it impacts NPCs as well. Look at "Keep on the Shadowfell" (H1) and you'll see plenty of people in Winterhaven with no real life but plenty of information to dispense. Actually, replace "plenty" with "only".

However. When Mearls wrote that adventure, he in all probability saw himself improving on extant standards. How come? In Dungeon (Nov 2004), when the original Keep on the Borderland was voted one of the best D&D adventures of all time, the jury inserted a one-liner by Mearls:

"Who cares that no one in the keep had a name?"

This is a coy ref to his wonderful take elsewhere . Enjoy!


I think the distinction between the Gygaxian Methodology and the Gygaxian Canon is a brilliant one. Well done, Jeremy.

For myself, I see Naturalism as part of the Methodology. It's certainly the part of the Gygaxian legacy of design and play that I most favor, even if I do like many aspects of the Canon. Of course, OD&D (and cherry-picking parts of Supplements I-IV) is my game, so the Gygaxian Canonical elements in those little brown books are much fewer than in, say, AD&D, even if the Methodology is in full force.

Let me just say also that this thread has impressed the heck out of me. Lots of thoughtful discussion going on, including some extremely useful extensions of the kernel I offered up in my original post. Reminds me why I still visit the Paizo forums, even though I don't play or read Pathfinder.


Ok, I'll try to give it another shot.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
For example lets suppose you have a wide collection of Dungeon Magazines and other adventure modules.

So you are using a large collection of pregenerated material as your source material. Obviously though, you couldn't possible use all of it. Which means some material will be used and some material will not be used.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
You could design a region of your world and populate it with varous groups with varous agenda's.

So you are using the pregenerated stuff, but you are making subjective decisions about what goes where.

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
Then scatter adventures across your region. Weave the plots together somewhat (though there should be many separate plots going on). The key is to do all of this before you know what kinds of characters your players are going to make. This way the treasure that will be found, the challenges that will be faced, and the plot lines that are taking place don't reference your players at all.

So the material is independent of the players choices but is not independent of the DM's choices. If the DM likes undead encounters for example, then may subjectively focus on more material that deals with undead. Again, not everything can be included so decisions have to be made on what to focus on.

Spoiler:
On a person note, I as a player and a DM would find this type of mentality frustrating. Consider if you are playing a paladin and you never get to fight truly vile/fiendish foes because your DM didn't want to "direct" the encounters in such a way that would give your character a chance to shine. I personal prefer a more balanced approach between total randomness and total synch with party members.

So my question was, how is it any better/realistic to subjectively choose pregenerated material based on the DM's interests than to take also take into account the other players' interests as well?

The big "theme" is going to be an army attacking the home kingdom of the PCs. The DM likes bugbears and wants to make it a bugbear army. One of the players is a cleric and would love to get some time to fight undead. The DM, changes his mind about the army the PCs haven't encountered or heard about yet and makes it an army of undead. How is that lacking in "naturalism". The original choice (bugbear army) was subjectively chosen, why changing it to an equally subjectively chosen group make it unless "true" to the game world.

EDIT: Also if you are running an AP or module, all you are doing is using someone else's subjective opinion as to what monsters/encounters/items are "natural" than the DM's and/or players'.


Chris Mortika wrote:
But we're discussing a style where random rolling means nobody's to blame when really bad luck happens. And in a simulationist campaign --where the DM decides what's in rooms, which NPCs have what possessions, and how they're going about their plans, all without recourse to random encounter tables, random treasure set-ups, or other charts-- there's actual blame to go around; to DM's who fail to give out enough clues for PC's to act sensibly, or to players for failing to notice them.

But there is a danger in believing that randomness = realism/naturalism. This is hardly true. A kobold walking around with a masterwork large bastard sword isn't "natural" just because it came up on a random table roll. Random tables are means to an end, not an end in themselves.


Hey all, just wanted to say "hello!" (first post here). After J.M. wrote his piece about Gygaxian Naturalism, it sparked something with me as well - I posted two follow up articles about it over at The Core Mechanic on 10/3 and 10/5. Some of you may think this is a shameless plug - it is not - I am only posting it becuase I figured it was germane for the conversation. Here are the titles/links

Extending Gygaxian Naturalism I (or Directed Graph Theory for Monster Ecology)

and

Extending Gygaxian Naturalism II

There's also a number of comments in those posts by other excellent RPG bloggers.

For those of you who read the articles, some may think I've really "gone down the rabbit hole" - regardless, I hope that you enjoy them becuase ... well.. didn't we all follow Alice a long time ago?

Sovereign Court

Just to add five short supporting thoughts:

On James M: Thank you for complimenting this thread and the intelligence of PAIZONIANS. Many of us care deeply about the traditions and 30+ year history of our game. We have you to thank for originally posting the well-written article on Gygaxian Naturalism that succinctly drew us into this enlightening discussion. And, I must add that I know Erik Mona is a frequent reader of your blog. Thank YOU.

On Mearls: First, read what Mearls said in 1999: "They decided that their target audience was so desperate for anything new that they could just print so much garbage and the dimwitted gamers would buy it all." "The crime: peddling crap on those who didn't know enough to call it crap." Second: add a point to the scoreboard to Pax Veritas for having matured enough not to say what is foremost on his mind about Mearls and 4e now having become the thing he despised...

@ Jeremy - You said, "Once your players have made their characters they can do as they please and follow up on the various adventure hooks that are built into the region you have created. In this way you have your players interacting in the world but the world is not about them at all. The world just is and they are free to do as they please inside it." I do believe this is one of the aspects of naturalism in the way you've described it. This style describes the games I run as well, except for the element of "character development" and "world development," which I believe are related sub-topics under the Gygaxian Methodology, i.e. as the PCs find themselves in the intersection of many fantastic and important situations, having strong potential impact to one another. Simultaneously, the GM is "feeding" off the generated characters their intentions about what they'd like to do next, or what they'd like to become next (individually and in relation to to other PCs). I'll try to add more on this in a subsequent post.

Suggested summary: I'd like to check my understanding.... Per everyone's contributions, especially James, Mairkurion, Houstonderek, Chris, etc... are we in agreement that following a Gygaxian Methodology is an umbrella term, and using Gygaxian Naturalism and following Canon are aspects (ways to achieve it) that could be placed under that heading? What other subsets are there? I wonder if anyone has made a richly compiled chart that is hierarchically structured like this, with the types of definitions offered by Jeremy and James M?

Gygaxian Methodology (in part may be GSN, but mostly two of the three)
>>Gygaxian Naturalism
>>Gygaxian Canon

On Gary Gygax's Own Words: I like how many of us are referring to or considering primary sources. When I get a chance this evening, I'll stop back and share my favorite quote from Gary. It comes from the AD&D DMG, first ed., AFTERWORD page (and it IS all in CAPS; its the one with the naked succubus sitting on a rock on it). I seem to recall this important passage describing that the campaign at large (i.e. the world is served first and foremost), then your adventure, then the PCs within in, in that order. If I recall right, this quote could make a good cornerstone of Gygaxian Naturalism wisdom.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Which is why I think we ought to avoid bring novels and other RPGs or media into the equation when using this terminology. That leads to lots of confusion.

Jeremy,

I was using Tolkien and Morcock as examples that would likely be widely known. I bring them in to indicate how I think GNS fails to contribute, at least optimally, to our discussion about naturalism.
Spoiler:
Specifically, that story elements only exist in story. If they really belonged to different agendas a la GNS, they would be something other than story elements.
It seems to me that the more they entered the discussion, the more we veered away from talking about the concrete specifics of Gygaxian naturalism, and other naturalisms in the game, and the more we struggled with this terminology and the concepts behind it. Perhaps, a quagmire.

Why analyze what is in the giant's sack from the point-of-view of social interaction, so broadly conceived? Perhaps it is interesting in some right, but I do not see how it contributes as directly to the sense of a secondary reality that has inner consistency as, for example asking, "how did those items come to be in the giant's sack?" GNS is an out-of-story posing of the question, and it would yield an out-of-story answer.

On the other hand, the basic tool of narrative analysis were devised to get at story.

Sovereign Court

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
GNS is an out-of-story posing of the question, and it would yield an out-of-story answer.

Good clarification.


OH.. and I forgot to link something else - I've been collecting articles about Gygaxian Naturalism in one of my Google Notebooks

The Core Mechanic's D&D Notebook

There's about nine articles, all written by different RPG bloggers, about Gygaxian Naturalism listed there. As well as this thread. Enjoy!


I figure a Gygaxian cannon would fire frost giants into 10x10 rooms.

...

Kidding! Kidding! I was kidding! Don't hit or yell!

-The Gneech

Sovereign Court

John Robey wrote:

I figure a Gygaxian cannon would fire frost giants into 10x10 rooms.

...

Kidding! Kidding! I was kidding! Don't hit or yell!

-The Gneech

LOL... what an image!


Pax Veritas wrote:
@ Jeremy - You said, "Once your players have made their characters they can do as they please and follow up on the various adventure hooks that are built into the region you have created. In this way you have your players interacting in the world but the world is not about them at all. The world just is and they are free to do as they please inside it." I do believe this is one of the aspects of naturalism in the way you've described it. This style describes the games I run as well, except for the element of "character development" and "world development," which I believe are related sub-topics under the Gygaxian Methodology, i.e. as the PCs find themselves in the intersection of many fantastic and important situations, having strong potential impact to one another. Simultaneously, the GM is "feeding" off the generated characters their intentions about what they'd like to do next, or what they'd like to become next (individually and in relation to to other PCs). I'll try to add more on this in a subsequent post.

Note that I was not contending that this is Gygaxian Naturalism. Gygax would have probably never had a significant library of works to draw on. He was working as fast as he could just to have an adventure available for his group.

I made this as a suggestion when Searn asked essentially 'is there another way achieve naturalism without recourse to Gygaxian Naturalism.

Hence my response is basically here is another, non-Gygaxian, way'.


Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:


Which is why I think we ought to avoid bring novels and other RPGs or media into the equation when using this terminology. That leads to lots of confusion.

Jeremy,

I was using Tolkien and Morcock as examples that would likely be widely known. I bring them in to indicate how I think GNS fails to contribute, at least optimally, to our discussion about naturalism. ** spoiler omitted ** It seems to me that the more they entered the discussion, the more we veered away from talking about the concrete specifics of Gygaxian naturalism, and other naturalisms in the game, and the more we struggled with this terminology and the concepts behind it. Perhaps, a quagmire.

Why analyze what is in the giant's sack from the point-of-view of social interaction, so broadly conceived? Perhaps it is interesting in some right, but I do not see how it contributes as directly to the sense of a secondary reality that has inner consistency as, for example asking, "how did those items come to be in the giant's sack?" GNS is an out-of-story posing of the question, and it would yield an out-of-story answer.

On the other hand, the basic tool of narrative analysis were devised to get at story.

While I fully acknowledge that GNS theory is inadequate - and they we are in fact using the terminology in a manner that is not even how it was intended to be used.

However I tend to find the concepts are even more opaque if we cease to use such terminology. If I say that something like Gygax's Drow are Gamist most people here will understand what I mean and they can either agree with me, call me out for a flawed understanding of Gygax's Drow or posit a response thats along the lines of 'yes, but...'

When we move away from such terminology we end up having to either try and explain what we mean via anecdotes or we have to make up other terms.

For example I'm not so sure I understand what you mean by 'out of story' and am unclear regarding what your criticism of it is.


pres man wrote:

Ok, I'll try to give it another shot.

So you are using a large collection of pregenerated material as your source material. Obviously though, you couldn't possible use all of it. Which means some material will be used and some material will not be used.

Sure. My favourite material in all likely hood.

pres man wrote:


So you are using the pregenerated stuff, but you are making subjective decisions about what goes where.
pres man wrote:


Certainly.

So the material is independent of the players choices but is not independent of the DM's choices. If the DM likes undead encounters for example, then may subjectively focus on more material that deals with undead. Again, not everything can be included so decisions have to be made on what to focus on.

Yes. If the DM likes undead then there are going to be lots of undead themes in the world. When the players do start interacting with it they'll likely pick up on this - its a feature, not a bug...really, cross my heart.

pres man wrote:


So my question was, how is it any better/realistic to subjectively choose pregenerated material based on the DM's interests than to take also take into account the other players' interests as well?

Were did I say it was better? I'm sure I made no such claim. I do think its more authentic feeling if its done correctly but authenticity, as Chris points out in a great post above, is not necessarily a panacea. Some prefer it in their games while a great many other DMs would never allow some plastic shapes with numbers on them to decide something so important as whether characters come back from the dead or not.

Its realistic in that the DM can create a very authentic feeling world. Whether authenticity is a goal you strive for or one your group wants, well that is for each DM and group to decide.

As Chris points out the thread has mostly been a kind of tribute to Gygaxian Naturalism and has portrayed it in a very positive light - but it has its dark side. Fundamentally to achieve naturalism, Gygaxian or otherwise, means you have already chosen a path were authenticity trumps story. You might choose to temper this to a greater or lesser extent, that maybe more possible with some kinds of naturalism then others. Gygaxian Naturalism starts to really fall apart if your just going to roll again and again on the table until you get a result you like. At that point your better off not using tables at all because you've allowed personal bias to interfere - and there is a great danger that personal bias could result in the DM playing favourites.

pres man wrote:


The big "theme" is going to be an army attacking the home kingdom of the PCs. The DM likes bugbears and wants to make it a bugbear army. One of the players is a cleric and would love to get some time to fight undead. The DM, changes his mind about the army the PCs haven't encountered or heard about yet and makes it an army of undead. How is that lacking in "naturalism". The original choice (bugbear army) was subjectively chosen, why changing it to an equally subjectively chosen group make it unless "true" to the game world.

EDIT: Also if you are running an AP or module, all you are doing is using someone else's subjective opinion as to what monsters/encounters/items are "natural" than the DM's and/or players'.

Well in the example of naturalism I was giving Saern I did not include a 'Big Theme'. That was intentional, I think once you have decided that some particular story is more important then the other stories then I'd probably suggest that maybe naturalism is not the best option for running that campaign.

In any case I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the DM changing the monsters from bugbears to undead. But if your going to be nice to the cleric then you really ought to make sure that your shining the spotlight on the other players as well. Its only fair after all. Hence pretty soon you have a world that reacts to the players as opposed to the players reacting to the world - thats a fine way to play but its not Gygaxian Naturalism.

Once you've started down this path then its no longer necessary to know that Gnoll Tribes have a 40% chance of having 2-16 Hyena's. That becomes the wrong way to play the game. Instead the Gnoll Tribe ought to have pets based on what the druid or ranger can interact with in the most interesting way at the table. Maybe wolves would be better as the Druid has heavy wold aspects and could possibly get the wolves to revolt against the Gnolls. That might make a great adventure with a really cool role playing scene embedded in it - but its not Gygaxian Naturalism where canon tells us that Gnolls work with Hyena's and not Wolves.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
For example I'm not so sure I understand what you mean by 'out of story' and am unclear regarding what your...

If I understand the GNS typology, it is based on social interaction and conflicting goals or values. This has nothing to do with the creation of a secondary world, peopled with characters who undertake adventures, by the GM and players. It does not analyze how it is done or how it could be done better. Instead, it is of use in telling us why some people enjoy or don't enjoy certain types of social interaction at the gaming table. Narcissitic GMs, Munchkin players, airy dreamers, etc. Thus it is "outside of the story". Now you could say that meta-narrative theory is also outside of the story, but it is concerned with story, and not with something else.

Now my idea of a good time is not being at the mercy of a control freak GM, or teamed up with a bunch of players who are covertly working out their competitive feelings, though I don't mind some of this going on at a very low level (we all like to have our pets for others to appreciate, and we all like to succeed at challenges.) So this would make me a simulationist, by GNS. Fine. But this analysis does nothing for me, and I really don't see how it does a lot for the practical questions of how to have naturalistic games or the descriptive question of what Gygaxian naturalism is. (Seriously, Pax has assembled from this thread the Master's thesis proposal for some game designer. To really do this would be a substantial amount of academic work. Any takers?)

For myself, I am mostly interested in listening to others work on the Gygaxian side of the issue--I have some opinions, but they are rather intuitional and probably buried under more years than I would care to admit. But on the practical side, and the theory that underlies it, I am not only very interested but pretty convinced about what I think I know, and this thread has simply increased the extent to which I think GNS is rather irrelevant to that: What is naturalism in the game? How do we accomplish it?

So I guess that, unless and until convinced otherwise, I am advocating the trouble to try new terminology and giving antecdotal illustrations. The Drow are a great example. People object to the drow's magical items disintegrating. Well, sure. Who didn't want to cart all that neat loot back up to the surface? But it could have been a naturalistic disappointment, if it had been part and parcel of a well-thought-out (and consistent) creation of the underdark, and if I were guessing, in somebody's campaign, it already has been. Even if you look at the problem of PC power from a naturalistic POV, it makes a difference: the question becomes, how realistic is it for the players to be this powerful at this point, in this situation? And then come in all the relevant issues about the nature of the story-world, heroes within it, and so on. The GM's knowing what is in the bag becomes a question of fate/providence/destiny in the story-world, of the range of relevant possibilities in the story-world, of the appropriate challenges to the GM and to the players in the creation of plot and tension, and so forth. Whether she decides that she knows what is in it, its connection to player wishes or plot resolution, or that it is the appropriate subject for the more random and unknown, it is still a GM decision either way, and one that should be made to enhance the reality of the secondary creation, whether by pushing providence/destiny to the foreground or by removing GM or player wishes from this particular matter.

Geez, I hate to make this post any longer, but just in case: I am not advocating that everybody go and learn some method and theory that I have conveniently already mastered (and waiting to spring on you--haha!), or that I think you should be smart enough to invent on the spot as an improvement on GNS. I am just saying, take what you learned about story (in English classes? from experience?) and use that to ask questions about building a natural-feeling world for fantasy gaming. Or to tell me how your mastery of Gygaxian canon/method/forumla X will apply to making my worlds better. Thanks for your patience.


Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
In any case I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the DM changing the monsters from bugbears to undead. But if your going to be nice to the cleric then you really ought to make sure that your shining the spotlight on the other players as well. Its only fair after all. Hence pretty soon you have a world that reacts to the players as opposed to the players reacting to the world - thats a fine way to play but its not Gygaxian Naturalism.

Except you are making an either-or fallacy here. You can have individual events/encounters that high light different things and you can have totally random things that don't high light an PC specificly.

You can have some gnoll encounters be tribes with some "natural" dynamic and other gnoll encounters invovling allies that play to the party's composition. I would say that there is a bit of lack of "naturalism" when all gnoll groups are essentially carbon copies of each other.

Sovereign Court

@Mairkurion - I like what you have said and will take some time to digest this. Very well put. And, I would agree that the GNS is muddy when it comes to the overlay upon this discussion. Insomuchas it helps define the social draw is one thing, but it seems we're all agreed to just focus on the game formerly known only as AD&D or D&D. To the extent we're staying specific to this game, and not some more general social rpg game theory, I agree that GNS adds some value, moreso than if we didn't have these ideas, but isn't sufficiently cutting it here.

All - as I promised earlier, here is the passage from the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide copyright 1979 TSR Games, revised edition, p230.
And for accuracy, I'll be keeping the ALL CAPS style, as it appears in the book:

"AFTERWORD
IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PERAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!" - Gary Gygax-

I suspect some long-time GMs got goose bumps re-reading that passage. I know I did.

Liberty's Edge

yep. goosebumps. god, i love 1e...


Off-topic:

Spoiler:
I wish I knew just how many hours I spent in college playing 1e...(even more than I did in middle school)...wonder how it compared to hours in class. : )

Liberty's Edge

Mairkurion {tm} wrote:
Off-topic: ** spoiler omitted **

Spoiler:
i have a masters in AD&D
Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

Another essay which is worth discussing in the context of Gygaxian Naturalism is Nightscreed's infamous Putting the Grey in the Hawk.

This essay (which was written before the release of 3E) attempts to define the essential qualities of Gygax's original vision for the Greyhawk campaign setting.

The essay is a bit lengthy and I don't agree with everything that Nightscreed says, but it's still worth a read.

I wonder how many of Nightscreed's criteria for Gygaxian Greyhawk are actually criteria for Gygaxian fantasy in general:

Nightscreed wrote:


Subj: Grey in the Hawk1
Date: 96-07-26 22:44:41 EDT
From: NiteScreed

What does it mean for a product or adventure or even an entirely new creation to be suitably "Greyhawk?"

---

Criteria No. 1 Applied Internal Historic Consistency
Greyhawk has a strong internal sense of history that should be consistently applied in all "Greyhawk" products or creations. However, not every product published under the name "Greyhawk" meets this criteria.

Greyhawk is a storied realm. Its seminal figures, good and ill, are interwoven throughout the setting. It has a defined history that strongly influences the present and future of the setting. Greyhawk's history is not a footnote but an integral part of the setting that must be understood to truly comprehend the relationships among men, nations and even gods. True "Greyhawk" products or creations build on this history, incorporate it and develop it. The best such products or creations leave enough open ends to allow for further such development. More mediocre products attempt closure of every loose plot thread.

---

Criteria No. 2 Player Resolution of Critical Events
The seminal events in Greyhawk's current history and development are all presented such that the players may not only take part but play a leading role.

Players fought in the Greyhawk Wars. Players defeated the hordes of the Temple of Elemental Evil. Players defeated Lolth. Players turned the tide as Iuz aced Vecna.

In the Forgotten Realms, for example, Ao decrees an event and the players get to clean up in the aftermath. Cyric destroys Zhentil Keep offstage and the players get to delve into the ruins. Gods die to be replaced by mortals and the players watch. Elminster sends players on a mission but ultimately keeps from them the greater goal the mission serves.

When you play in Greyhawk, you join in the weaving of a tapestry of which you are a vital part. Greyhawk is about your story in the context of Greyhawk's story. Roleplaying in Greyhawk involves playing your part in the longest running AD&D campaign in existence. It is bigger than you are but you can become as great as it is. That is the essence of Greyhawk's history. It enfolds, informs and connects every part of the setting and all who play there of any length of time.

---

Criteria No. 3 NPCs Reward More Often Than They Advise or Direct

NPC's in Greyhawk are not godlike figures who direct the course of events upon which your character is washed like the tide. Neither do they persistently show up to advise you. They may do both but more often they serve as the measuring stick against which your character's performance can be judged and serve to reward your character by recognizing their accomplishments or otherwise admitting your character into their august company.

The Circle of Eight are aloof. They do not want to be your buddy. Neither do they have a laundry list of chores for you to perform. Rather, in Greyhawk you will find adventure without such NPCs suggesting it.

In the Forgotten Realms, for example, Elminster is famous for sending characters on their way. The Harpers do the same. Ultimately, Elminster or the Harpers play the directing role and may indeed appear to steal the show or otherwise claim ultimate victory.

In Greyhawk, YOU are the hero. Without assistance from the likes of the Circle of Eight and without them acting as a safety net. You can go your own way, in fact, without them ever troubling you. This cannot be so simply said in settings such as the Forgotten Realms and has not a little to do with Criteria No. 2 (Player Resolution of Critical Events in Greyhawk vs. NPC Resolution of Critical Events in FR).

---

Criteria No. 4 Persistent Personified Evil
Evil in Greyhawk is persistent. It is halted, checked or imprisoned but it is not defeated with finality for all time. The triumph over evil is a relative thing, ultimately transitory.

Evil in Greyhawk is personified. Evil has faces and names attached to it that ring down through the setting's history. It is not an evil that pops up purely to give the players something to strive against and defeat before moving on to the next evil that similarly appears out of relative nowhere.

Vecna, Iuz, Lolth, Tharzidun, the Scarlet Brotherhood, Aerdi, Kas, even Turrosh Mak, all met this criteria. They are highly personified forces that spring from the settings specific history. By comparison, evil in the Forgotten Realms is of the pop-up variety save for the Red Wizards and Zhentrim. Menaces appear from nowhere or with on the spot histories that never before appeared in the setting.

Greyhawk allows for this type of toaster villainy but it also established from the first villains of a historic character that transcend the needs of the adventure of the moment.

---

Criteria No. 5 Villainous Variety
Villainy in Greyhawk runs the gambit from the cosmic menace of Tharzidun, to the planar peril of Lolth, to the cambion menace of Iuz, to the purely moral menace of Turrosh Mak. Their is variety in the villainy. Villainy in Greyhawk is like a box of chocolates from Hell; you never know for sure what you are going to get (Best Example: The Giant Series). Greyhawk's villains do not announce themselves; you have to figure it out.

Compare villainy in the Forgotten Realms. The variety isn't there. You have scads of godly villains. The Red Wizards. The Zhents. It is feast or famine. And FR villains have signature trademarks that all but announce who you are facing.

Villains in Greyhawk will also turn on each other. The Iuz/Vecna conflict being perhaps the most famous. In other settings, villains are villains, identified by their clearly visible placards, sandwich signs or more "subtly" their black attire. You can count on them to always do the wrong thing.

Greyhawk keeps you guessing.

---

Criteria No. 6 Heroism With a Price
Greyhawk's heros rarely slay the evil wizard, who will trouble the land no more, to the full voiced cheers of the crowd. Best Iuz and you are marked. He will be back but you will have to deal with a likely enraged Zuggotomy in the meanwhile. Greyhawk's villains don't exist in a vacuum and neither do Greyhwk's heroes. Everything is linked.

Heroism has a meaning within the setting that makes it more than a solitary act echoing in the vastness. It attracts attention, good and ill. It is immediate and brings a notoriety that other settings can only talk about.

Notables exist to recognize your accomplishments and to measure you against themselves and the foe you defeated.

And, they will have likely played little or no role in your victory. Evil too takes your measure for darker reasons.

This criterion can best be seen in the breach. The interconnection of people and places and the loose ends creates this effect, though few published adventures use it to motivate future adventures.

---

Criteria No. 7 Militant Neutrality
On Oerth, the forces of neutrality are arguably at least as powerful as those of good and evil and certainly as active.

Greyhawk is not concerned with the triumph of good over evil. The very nature of the evils loose on Oerth makes such triumphs fleeting at best. Greyhawk endures evil and circumvents it. It does not permanently defeat it.

Evil forces, of course, will attempt to conquer Oerth. And just as certainly they will be opposed by forces who will seek to banish evil from the world. Neither will succeed. Neither in the long history of Oerth has ever succeeded. Good and evil are well enough matched that outcomes are never certain and always close calls one way or the other.

Moreover, evil on Oerth is not monolithic. Various demon lords and ladies contend with each other. Iuz battles Vecna. Kas seeks Vecna's destruction. Iuz feuds with his mother and father. Evil beings are true to no one save themselves.

Perhaps accounting for all of this, Oerth has strong and active neutrally aligned forces, working to preserve a balance between good and evil. While hardly organized, these forces nonetheless manage to be quite effective. The Circle of Eight, mighty wizards all, seeks a middle path. Istus, the divine Lady of Fate, tests all but favors none. Druids are a quiet but watchful presence. Indeed, many of Greyhawk's deities reflect a distinct neutral bent.

Compare Toril. Evil is overmatched by Elminster, the Seven Sisters (good aligned minions of the goddess of magic), the Harpers, the Lords of Waterdeep and activist gods. Evil is on the run and kept that way. It has but few strong holds and is highly transient, rarely surviving long enough to present more than a temporary challenge. Good triumphs on Toril. The dragon is slain, never to rise. The horror you never heard of before yesterday is laid to rest. The bad gods are thrown down!

The differences could not be more striking. Greyhawk is about struggle against evenly matched and long standing opponents. FR is about victory over transient and overmatched opponents.

---

Criteria No. 8 Personal Magics
Greyhawk is not a low fantasy setting save by comparison to settings on magical overload. Birthright is a low fantasy setting. The Forgotten Realms is a high fantasy setting. Greyhawk falls in between.

What distinguishes magic in Greyhawk is that it is highly personalized. Look at the spells. Mordenkain's this. Nystul's that. Otiluke's the other. Magic is personalized by any wizard not of the hedge variety. Look at the artifacts for still more proof. What Birthright strives to achieve sparingly, Greyhawk has already accomplished in fair profusion. Spells have a history as do magic items. While there are +1 swords of no certain fame, many are the items with specific histories. Look at the Greyhawk Adventures hardback.

Similarly magical instruction in Greyhawk is personal. Greyhawk does not know great guilds of wizards but flourishes with a developed system of apprenticeships. One need but look at the Circle of Eight to see this. They, with one, possibly two, exceptions, belong to no guild of mages, and they that do belong do so as patrons at best and more probably as figureheads. Neither can the Circle itself be considered a guild. This mighty example and the utter lack of a single magical guild of any note, fairly well makes the case.

----

These then are the eight traits that define the Greyhawk feel. Most critical are 1st (Applied Internal Historic Consistency), 4th (Persistent Personified Evil) and 7th (Militant Neutrality) points. At the barest minimum to be considered truly "Greyhawk" a product or creation must adhere to these three criteria. Better products or creations adhere to progressively more of these criteria.

Without doing a full dress analysis of From the Ashes, I think we can see that it utterly fails to adhere to the 7th criterion. FtA throws neutrality out the window in favor of paring off goods and evils in a Flaneass tilted wildly toward evil. Furondy/Nyrond is pared off with Iuz. Aerdi is pared off with Nyrond. Keoland is paired off with the Scarlet Brotherhood/Pomarj. While overall, evil is clearly ascendent. This sort of dark fantasy, whatever its merits otherwise, defies the tradition of active neutrality that defined Greyhawk beforehand. That about half all WoG players rejected FtA supports this hypothesis. FtA's designers, to include the Greyhawk Wars, were ignorant, willfully or otherwise, of the setting in which they worked.
The resulting products while technically proficient, even well done on their own merits, were sadly lacking in that Greyhawk feel. Of course, some would choose to ignore this, finding the change "bracing," others with duller senses wouldn't even notice.

In any event, now we have a list of what puts the Grey in the Hawk. This list is by no means exclusive. I may have overlooked something and I know some listed criteria are of lesser note than others or mere permutations. However, I think overall the list can stand up to close scrutiny. Have at it!

GV Dammerung followed up this document with an Old Greyhawk Style Guide that built on many of the concepts introduced by Nightscreed. Once again, I wonder how many of the stylistic principles that he introduced are general features of Gygaxian fantasy:

GV Dammerung wrote:

Like many people, I’ve read “The Grey in the Hawk” by Nitescreed, ne NightScreed. Whatever else you want to say about it or its author, The Grey in the Hawk is an attempt at a style document for Greyhawk. I have seen no other that does as well. That is not to say that the Grey in the Hawk is perfect. It is not. As time passes, I think the identity of the setting shifts with further publication of material that may or may not adhere to any particular style.

The idea of a style guide is, I think, a good one. Consistency can be famously foolish but can also be useful, particularly when someone may not be otherwise familiar with the Greyhawk opus. It also doesn’t hurt to be mindful of what you like or do not like in more than a passing way. Gut-feelings only get you so far. However, a style guide is more an adjunct to gut-feelings, I think, and should never replace an indefinable sense of what is appropriately “grey.”

What follows is another attempt at a Greyhawk Style Guide.

---

(1) Story Drives Setting
Historically, the details of the World of Greyhawk have been told through adventures - stories. Pure sourcebooks, that describe the setting or some part thereof in page after page of detail and exposition, have not been the norm. When designing for Greyhawk, the story being told should always be foremost in mind, rather than a collection of details, that while interesting, are unconnected to events. Even if writing a sourcebook, the facts or details should all be story relevant. If a fact is not story relevant, it should probably be omitted or dwelt upon only briefly. The Living Greyhawk Gazeteer is a notable exception in that it was predominantly just an exposition of facts. While applauded, the LGG has also been criticized for this quality as being “dry” or “a tome” or “not an easy read.”

---

(2) Focus on the PC Involvement
Because Greyhawk has been largely defined by adventures, which provided setting details in passing as necessary background, there has also been a focus on PCs as significant actors. Few important events should occur entirely offstage, where the PCs are uninvolved and will only be told what has happened. Ideally, the PCs should be able to become involved, the more directly, the better. If the PCs are not the exclusive focus, they should least have an opportunity to witness the events taking place, with a possibility, however remote, of being involved.

Sometimes, as in the opening sequence of Vecna Lives or with the Greyhawk Wars wargame, the PCs participation may have to be vicarious through the players themselves. However it is done, the PCs should not just read about important events or be told that they happened. That is not classically Greyhawk.

---

(3) All Events In Context
Every described fact or event should have a place in the greater context of the setting. This has been described as the “wheels within wheels” effect. Purely random occurrences, unconnected with much of anything, are not the norm. RPGA adventures (Childsplay etc.) that were “dropped” into Greyhawk are the best examples of the problems with unconnected designs. Greyhawk’s facts have been set out variously in a variety of products, yet, there appear interconnections between these facts that give the setting a richness or depth. For example, the references to Iggwilv’s daughter in Mordenkainen’s Fantastic Adventure are more meaningful if one is familiar with the Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. Not all Greyhawk material is so subtly referential or cross-referenced but enough is to mark the setting as one where everything has some degree of context with what has gone before or what will follow, or should/could have.

---

(4) Loose-ends
Critical to Greyhawk is the manner in which facts are presented. They are not usually presented in a closed-loop or in absolute terms unless essential to the story being told. Incidental or developmental facts have a noticeable degree of ambiguity. Some just trail off with but a mere mention. These are loose-ends. They invite the imagination and speculation as in no other setting. If Greyhawk has exhibited a sort of pseudo-scholarship and a huge capacity for fan created derivative works that no other setting has equaled, it is likely attributable to the fact that Greyhawk has so many loose-ends left hanging that spur the imagination and get people to wondering “what if” or “how might this relate to . . .” Writing purposefully may too easily omit loose-ends as a careful writer will look to leave a story with no loose-ends. That is not, however, Greyhawk.

---

(5) Balance and Neutrality
Next to the loose-ends, this is probably Greyhawk’s signature feature. Greyhawk is not a setting of white-hats and black-hats squaring off against each other at high noon in the middle of a dusty street. Neutrality plays a larger role in Greyhawk than in any other published setting and there are powerful forces neutrally aligned that seek to balance good and evil. Mordenkainen and the Circle of Eight are, of course, the most famous agents of Balance. If the From the Ashes era may be criticized legitimately, it is in leaving the Greyhawk Wars and the aftermath of the Greyhawk Wars too clearly divided into camps aligned with weal and woe. The Greyhawks Wars and their aftermath were too unsubtle in their aligning of forces. Large scale wars are unsubtle but Greyhawk is not a simulation; it is fantasy. Greyhawk should always see matters left in some degree of uncertainty or equipoise - gray. Any setting impacting event should see forces of neutrality involved, even if only peripherally.

---

(6) Nostalgia
Greyhawk is a nostalgic setting. That is not a bad thing. Not only has it been around longer than any other published setting but it has a rich real world history. This is important to remember when considering what might be sufficiently “grey.” Different from the comment on context, nostalgia is better understood as a “harkening back” or a “touching base” or “touchstone” effect. The most obvious harkening backs are the various “Returns” to classic adventures or products. Less obvious are the returning characters or figures native to the setting. Vecna has been returned to most memorably, if perhaps too overtly. It is very Greyhawk to indulge nostalgia by harkening back to prior events or occurrences or even whole adventures. However, care must be taken because too heavy a hand is not good and mere name dropping may appear to be nothing more. Neither is it essential to adopt a pure dungeon-crawl approach. That is nostalgic but a little goes a long way. Evoking Greyhawk’s storied past is tricky but the best Greyhawk products seem to do this. The Istivin story arc in Dungeon nicely attempted to play to nostalgia but then fumbled beyond the D-series touchstone by presently rather mediocre exposition of subsequent events.

---

(7) Canon
In the specific context of Greyhawk, “canon” is largely a fan created concept. Best understood, it is a desire for consistency with prior works such that, for example, County A is not a feudal kingdom in Product 1, a dictatorial theocracy in Product 2, and a secular, pure democracy in Product 3, where all products are set in the same time period. Unfortunately, canon is often stated or construed to require a slavish devotion to every fact, factoid, inferred surmise and developed minutia of the setting. Worse, canon is often stated to be a litmus test of all design, particularly any design that advances the timeline of events in the setting. The worst offenders are more concerned with canon than with a playable or enjoyable setting, some “fans” going so far as to admit to not having actually played in the setting regularly, if ever. To get Greyhawk right, “canon” is important in its broader sense but not in its most cramped reading. Canon is not a litmus test. The past does not define the future; it informs it and then only to suggest, not to require or shape design. Greyhawk must succeed first as a roleplaying game experience and secondarily, it may do so profitably by using canon to suggest, but not to require or prohibit, future developments, bearing in mind the stated desirability of a general consistency. Too great an adherence to canon is not Greyhawk because (if for no other reason) it would quantify too much that should develop as loose-ends (see Loose-ends above) and/or shades of uncertainty (see Balance above).

---

(8) A Sense of History
Related to nostalgia, context and canon is a more specific sense of the history or age within the setting. The history of the Flanaess is fantastic in every sense of the word. The Twin Cataclysms. The Migrations. The Ancient Flan. The Rise and Fall of Aerdi. The history of the Flanaess was momentous and still reverberates. Drawing on this history or adding to it is very Greyhawk. The Greyhawk Adventures, hardback, for example, is one of the most influential Greyhawk products for it introduced Places of Mystery that are now a signature feature of the setting and it did more than simply introduce them; it placed them within the history of the setting, developing the history of the setting in the process. Much of Greyhawk and that within Greyhawk has some kind of history. When designing, giving an item, NPC or even a plot a history is important. Jack-in-Box NPCs, items, plots etc. that just pop-up without any forgoing history should be the exception. This does not mean that nothing new can be created; to the contrary, as with Greyhawk Adventures, new is good, but new that feels old is better.

(9) Epic Adventures
It is not unusual to hear some people say that Greyhawk has seen enough turmoil and tumult, that there have been enough setting shaking events. This is nonsense. It is very Greyhawk to turn things upside down, or at least to threaten to. The Greyhawk Wars is the oft cited example of too much. In Vecna Lives, the signature Circle of Eight were killed, but ultimately returned. In Die Vecna Die, Vecna attempted to achieve ultimate godhead and the option is there that he succeeded. The settings creator, in his Gord novels, destroyed Oerth when Tharizdun was released. If not dealt a “sharp check,” giants, in league with the drow and a demon princess, have threatened to overwhelm Oerth. The giants “returned” to try to finish what they started. The Temple of Elemental Evil threatened to raise a horde to conquer all of the domain of Greyhawk and its surroundings if not stopped. Epic adventures, big adventures with potentially Oerth shaking consequences, are very Greyhawk. Greyhawk is not a setting where every adventure is small scale, timid or localized. Let’er rip.

---

(10) The Planes
The frequent occurrence of demi-planes in Greyhawk is nearly unique. The influence of extra-planar creatures, such as fiends, is nearly unique. The lack of direct godly involvement on Oerth is nearly unique. Greyhawks’ destruction by an imprisoned god-thing is nearly unique, at least among RPG settings. Greyhawk’s relationship with the planes is complex. It is often subtle or understated, such as gods refusing to send an avatar when a high level cleric is in trouble. It is often taken for granted, such as Iuz being born a cambion. It can be variant, such as the arrival of a spaceship through a dimensional wormhole. The influence of the planes is, however, a recurring theme. Like anything else, it can be overdone and done to death, but it is very Greyhawk all the same, uniquely so in the frequency and variety of its expression. Greyhawk is not a “low fantasy” setting.

---

(11) Nothing is Absolutely Forbidden

Greyhawk is very, very flexible. There is every variety of magic. There is technology. There is science-fiction. There is the Old West. There is literary allusion. There is comedy, even if low farce. There is a post-apocalyptic element. Greyhawk is not simply “medieval-fantasy” and those who want it so seek to exclude some of Greyhawk’s most unique charms. Nothing is absolutely forbidden in Greyhawk. In the main, Greyhawk is, of course, pseudo-medieval fantasy, but in the corners, it is so much more. Being quirky is very Greyhawk. Fitting for Greyhawk, there is a need to balance the more “unusual” elements of Greyhawk, however.

---

(12) Bring Your Friends
While not purely relevant to style, Greyhawk has a notable tradition of memorializing real people within the setting, using plays on words or variant spellings to good effect. Tzunk is a play on Rob Kuntz’s last name. The variations on Gary Gygax’ last name are innumerable. Further afield, Iquander, Erik Mona’s screen name and a pre-existing Greyhawk character in the Gord novels, has become something of an “editorial character” as he moves within the setting from rural Nellix to the City of Greyhawk and begins reordering the Great Library to include the works of “Estarius Rose” - Greyhawk author Rose Estes. Greyhawk fan Samantha Quest becomes the Greyhawk dragon Hautna Masq. Greyhawk fan “Keldreth” becomes an NPC of the same name. The Greyhawk fan who first attempted a Greyhawk style guide, Nitescreed, becomes the Aerdi bard Nightsong. The list goes on. Giving a nod to someone within the setting is very Greyhawk and not a few respellings have produced some descent fantasy names.

---

These 12 points, then, are my attempt to define a Greyhawk style guide. They are not exhaustive. I make no claim that they should be authoritative or even correct. They seem to me, however, to be a good “pointing in the right direction.” If others contribute, we might be able to arrive at something more widely agreeable.

Respectfully submitted.

Glenn Vincent Dammerung (aka GVD)

So does anybody want to have a crack at writing a more general Gygaxian adventure design style guide?

Liberty's Edge

Prime Evil wrote:

Another essay which is worth discussing in the context of Gygaxian Naturalism is Nightscreed's infamous Putting the Grey in the Hawk.

This essay (which was written before the release of 3E) attempts to define the essential qualities of Gygax's original vision for the Greyhawk campaign setting.

The essay is a bit lengthy and I don't agree with everything that Nightscreed says, but it's still worth a read.

I wonder how many of Nightscreed's criteria for Gygaxian Greyhawk are actually criteria for Gygaxian fantasy in general:

They are not.

They are garbage, a bunch of fanboyish setting war tripe that contradicts itself repeatedly, masquerading as an insightful examination of content and style.
This is a rebuttal I posted 5 years ago:

About that essay and those criteria;

Criteria No. 1 Applied Internal Historic Consistency

So you mean there is a canon that Greyhawk follows?
Well, of course there is. There is a canon to all campaigns.
Or do you mean it is followed more closely in Greyhawk than other campaigns?
Well the description given actually says the opposite, that many products released with the Greyhawk banner DON'T follow canon.

So this seems to be either irrelevant in comparison, or self-contradictory.

Criteria No. 2 Player Resolution of Critical Events

Actually, the Greyhawk Wars were fought completely off-stage. Suggestions were given for what players could do during them, but the course and end result were presented as a fait accompli. This was extended in The Adventure Begins with events like the Flight of the Fiends, and continued in The Living Greyhawk Gazzetteer with other critical events.
This should not be taken as unusual though. Whenever you deal with a published setting you must accept that the NPCs of the people writing the campaign are going to get in the official histories as completing tasks, and not your PCs. That is how it goes with such.

Criteria No. 3 NPCs Reward More Often Than They Advise or Direct

Again, not really. This very much depends on who you consider to be in charge of various things. Is the Circle of 8 everywhere? No. But a simple consideration of early modules shows that important NPCs are assumed to direct many things. T1 Village of Hommlett is chock full of NPCs willing to send the party off on their mission. The G1-3, D1-3, Q1 Giant-Drow-Lolth series assumes you are agents of the nobles of the region threatened by the giants. The A1-4 Slaver series assumes employment by important people of the Wild Coast to investigate the problem. The WG modules are mostly direct employment by the Circle of 8.
So NPCs do a lot of advising and directing in Greyhawk, even if they aren't the Circle of 8, or other major, named groups or individuals.

Criteria No. 4 Persistent Personified Evil

First, it seems the main issue is that Greyhawk has more old time villains than say the Forgotten Realms. I'm not sure how that is much of a big deal.
Second, it seems a good deal of Greyhawk villainy coming from nowhere is ignored.
The Slavers of the A series? Out of the blue.
Tharizdun? Introduced wholesale in a single module.
Vecna? A throwaway reference for a pair of artifacts turned into a nemesis.
No, Greyhawk villains appear as needed, just like other villains. And it would be boring if they didn't, and we were stuck with just three or four original villains from the folio. That would be boring indeed.

Criteria No. 5 Villainous Variety

Again, not really.
Turrosh Mak is little more than Aerdi writ small, somewhere else. Less, it is just the Bone March transplanted west. Original?
Tharizdun, Lolth, Acererak, Keraptis, even Iuz. All of extra-planar origin or with extra-planar ambitions. That seems pretty mundane and typical.
Aerdi and Ivid or the Scarlet Brotherhood? Well, that covers brute military might and sneaking assassins.
But where is the massive variety? I don't see it, just constant variations on a theme.

Criteria No. 6 Heroism With a Price

Actually, the revised supermodules offer the best examples of this not happening, beyond leading into another module series. Defeat Zuggtmoy and . . . the Scarlet Brotherhood has you kidnapped.
Defeat the Slavers and . . . Lolth tries to use you to empower her plans for conquest.
Defeat Lolth and . . . have a few token encounters of revenge.
Or if not, and considering other modules, you are typically leveling out of the range of active campaigning, so any such retribution is typically meaningless.

Criteria No. 7 Militant Neutrality

The main problem with this is how it conflicts with NPCs not doing everything. If the forces of Balance are so critical, then what are players but their tools or clean up squad?
Istus decrees, and the players observe.
Mordenkainen chooses a side, and the players are hired to enact his schemes.
I'm not seeing how this can exist in conjunction with those other points.

Criteria No. 8 Personal Magics

So a little bit of background for a few items, which any DM might be expected to provide, and slapping a few names on some spells makes Greyhawk unique?
What about the ton of FR spells named for Elminster, one of his Seven Girl Fridays, or some Lord of Waterdeep?
As for items, Ed Greenwood has provided seemingly endless articles with titles like "X Swords/Shields/Staves/Armor/Dire Space Hamster Home Living Habitat Extensions of the Realms".
So yet again, I'm not seeing anything particularly unique to Greyhawk about this.

No, overall this list seems to say much of nothing that is unique about Greyhawk in comparison to its main "competitor".

There are a lot better places to look for insight into both Greyhawk and setting design in general.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber
Samuel Weiss wrote:

They are not.

They are garbage, a bunch of fanboyish setting war tripe that contradicts itself repeatedly, masquerading as an insightful examination of content and style.

My point is that even where Nightscreed is wrong, his (her?) point of view can provide a useful starting point for defining those qualities that define the Gygaxian style.

I don't necessarily agree with everything that is said in the essay. And your response raises some interesting questions...

Samuel Weiss wrote:


Criteria No. 1 Applied Internal Historic Consistency

So you mean there is a canon that Greyhawk follows?
Well, of course there is. There is a canon to all campaigns. Or do you mean it is followed more closely in Greyhawk than other campaigns?
Well the description given actually says the opposite, that many products released with the Greyhawk banner DON'T follow canon.

So this seems to be either irrelevant in comparison, or self-contradictory.

I agree with you entirely on this point. Although it can perhaps be argued that Gygax himself was better at maintaining a sense of canon than most of those who worked on the Greyhawk product line after him. Nonetheless, this is probably the weakest point that Nightscreed makes.

I'm not sure that Gygaxian fantasy in general requires a slavish concern for internal consistency. If you look at the material that Gygax produced during his 'golden period', you'll see that he often reused ideas from earlier creations, placing them into a new context. I suspect that even major ideas like the introduction of the Drow in G3 may not have been planned in advance. His work was far more organic and less structured than Nightscreed thinks.

Nonetheless, it has to be said that Gygax was a master of retconning - he could take ideas that he had just thought of and weave them into the fabric of his world in such a way that the joins were invisible to his players. I suspect that he made an awful lot up on the fly, but had a knack for maintaining a sense of unity and internal consistency as he went forward.

Samuel Weiss wrote:


Criteria No. 2 Player Resolution of Critical Events

Actually, the Greyhawk Wars were fought completely off-stage. Suggestions were given for what players could do during them, but the course and end result were presented as a fait accompli. This was extended in The Adventure Begins with events like the Flight of the Fiends, and continued in The Living Greyhawk Gazetteer with other critical events.

This should not be taken as unusual though. Whenever you deal with a published setting you must accept that the NPCs of the people writing the campaign are going to get in the official histories as completing tasks, and not your PCs. That is how it goes with such.

This is one point where it is important to distinguish between Greyhawk as Gygax originally conceived it and Greyhawk as other authors later interpreted it.

I think that Gygaxian fantasy in general has strong credentials in this area - Gygax consistently emphasized the importance of keeping the PCs at the center of the action. He also consistently drew a very clear distinction between the power of the characters and the skill of the players, favouring the latter over the former.

To be truthful, I get the feeling that the way that PCs are involved in the resolution of critical events in the Greyhawk setting has more to do with the organic way that Greyhawk developed under Gygax's guiding hand than any sort of grand plan - there simply weren't any critical events occuring offstage because their weren't any critical events at all until Gygax got around to writing about them. And since this usually occurred in adventure modules, the player characters tended to end up in the thick of the action.

It is also worth noting the differences in the development processes used by early Greyhawk vs the Forgotten Realms. The original published version of Greyhawk was a modified version of Gygax's home campaign - Gygax didn't want to publish his homebrew campaign setting without substantial modification. By contrast, the Forgotten Realms was a far more faithful translation of Ed Greenwood's home campaign setting - at least at first.

Samuel Weiss wrote:


Criteria No. 3 NPCs Reward More Often Than They Advise or Direct

Again, not really. This very much depends on who you consider to be in charge of various things. Is the Circle of 8 everywhere? No. But a simple consideration of early modules shows that important NPCs are assumed to direct many things. T1 Village of Hommlett is chock full of NPCs willing to send the party off on their mission. The G1-3, D1-3, Q1 Giant-Drow-Lolth series assumes you are agents of the nobles of the region threatened by the giants. The A1-4 Slaver series assumes employment by important people of the Wild Coast to investigate the problem. The WG modules are mostly direct employment by the Circle of 8.
So NPCs do a lot of advising and directing in Greyhawk, even if they aren't the Circle of 8, or other major, named groups or individuals.

Leaving aside the various non-Gygaxian modules, you raise some good points here. The early modules certainly are full of important NPCs who have the potential to direct things. The Village of Hommlet is the classic example here, but the same principle is also true to a lesser extent in Keep on the Borderlands.

Let's take T1-4 as an example. The Village of Hommlett is crawling with NPCs who are more powerful than the player characters. But Gygax manages to keep most of these NPCs in the background for much of the adventure. Many of them are watchful, but not terribly active against the evil that is quietly growing beneath the ruined temple of elemental evil. Most of the significant NPCs have an agenda that precludes decisive direct action.

And this is a hallmark of Gygaxian fantasy to me. Gygax communicates a sense that the PCs are the most active agents of change in the local area. There's a passage in the 1e DMG where Gygax compares adventurers to gunfighters in the Wild West who need to keep moving from location to location as the frontier between civilization and the monster-haunted wilderness moves. This is a useful analogy - the gunfighter who comes into town might not have the same level of authority as the local sheriff, but he can expose the activities of the bad guys precisely because he is an outsider. This is a very Gygaxian theme, but one that has its roots in pulp fantasy - just look at the way that Conan comes to a location and disturbs the local balance of power in story after story.

Samuel Weiss wrote:

Criteria No. 4 Persistent Personified Evil

First, it seems the main issue is that Greyhawk has more old time villains than say the Forgotten Realms. I'm not sure how that is much of a big deal.

Second, it seems a good deal of Greyhawk villainy coming from nowhere is ignored.

The Slavers of the A series? Out of the blue.

Tharizdun? Introduced wholesale in a single module.

Vecna? A throwaway reference for a pair of artifacts turned into a nemesis.

No, Greyhawk villains appear as needed, just like other villains. And it would be boring if they didn't, and we were stuck with just three or four original villains from the folio. That would be boring indeed.

I agree with you entirely on this point, with the caveat that Gygax was exceptionally good at weaving new villains into his setting so that it felt like they had always been there. Gygax may have had some overall plan for the Greyhawk setting, but I doubt it. In the 1e DMG, he emphasized that

Gary Gygax wrote:
A fantasy world builds itself, almost as if the millieu takes on a life and realiy of its own....the interaction of judge and players shapes the bare bones of the initial creation into something far larger. It becomes fleshed out, and adventuring breathes life into a make-believe world. Similarly, the geography and history that you assign to the world will suddenly begin to shape the character of states and peoples. Details of former events will become obvious from mere outlines of the past course of things. Surprisingly, as the personalities of player characters and non-player characters in the millieu are bound to develop and become almost real, the nations and states of a well-conceived AD&D world will take on more of their own direction and life. What this all boils down to is that once the campaign is set in motion, you will become more of a recorder of events, while the millieu seemingly charts itos own course!

This organic process of incremental growth and development in cooperation with the players seems to me to be another hallmark of the Gygaxian style. Gygax emphasizes the importance of using 'vague hints and ambiguous answers' to build the campaign world on the fly. He uses hints and rumours to keep his options open, emphasizing flexibility and open-endedness. This approach allows him to introduce major new villains with minimal foreshadowing, yet weave them into his campaign setting in a way that preserves the sense of consistency.

As an aside, there's a nice quote in Gygax's Role-Playing Mastery that sums up his views in this area:

Gary Gygax wrote:
The campaign is constantly undergoing modification through game master and player interaction. When the principal characters in a story (the campaign) are free-willed and have a multitude ofd choices regarding how to proceed, it is counterproductive - and, in fact, impossible - to preordain just how the events in the campaign will unfold. Any successful campaign must be flexible, and its creator must be open to changes - not only the changes that he perceives are necessary, but those that are directly or indirectly suggested by the preferences and actions of the players and the PCs. The result of ongoing modifications is a campaign that at any point reflects and fulfills the desires and inclinations of the players as well as the GM.

In interviews, Gygax was consistently suspicious of the trend towards campaign metaplots.

Samuel Weiss wrote:

Criteria No. 6 Heroism With a Price

Actually, the revised supermodules offer the best examples of this not happening, beyond leading into another module series. Defeat Zuggtmoy and . . . the Scarlet Brotherhood has you kidnapped.

Defeat the Slavers and . . . Lolth tries to use you to empower her plans for conquest.

Defeat Lolth and . . . have a few token encounters of revenge.

Or if not, and considering other modules, you are typically leveling out of the range of active campaigning, so any such retribution is typically meaningless.

Agreed. Although the supermodules do not represent the work of Gygax himself, it is true that he rarely implements an overarching plot structure to tie individual adventures together in a statisfying way.

Nonetheless, the activities of the player characters do have effects in the campaign world and these effects increase as the characters grow in power.

And Gygax often hinted at interconnections between different adventures, although he rarely developed them in the way that the later supermodules did. I suspect that he liked to keep his options as open as possible.

Samuel Weiss wrote:


Criteria No. 7 Militant Neutrality

The main problem with this is how it conflicts with NPCs not doing everything. If the forces of Balance are so critical, then what are players but their tools or clean up squad?

Istus decrees, and the players observe.

Mordenkainen chooses a side, and the players are hired to enact his schemes.

I'm not seeing how this can exist in conjunction with those other points.

I do think that Nightscreed hits the nail on the head with this one. Gygaxian fantasy often ascribes more importance to the various neutral alignments than any other D&D designer - he often seems to assume that most PCs will choose a neutral alignment and will act in a way dictated by mercenary self-interest.

Samuel Weiss wrote:


Criteria No. 8 Personal Magics

So a little bit of background for a few items, which any DM might be expected to provide, and slapping a few names on some spells makes Greyhawk unique?

What about the ton of FR spells named for Elminster, one of his Seven Girl Fridays, or some Lord of Waterdeep?

As for items, Ed Greenwood has provided seemingly endless articles with titles like "X Swords/Shields/Staves/Armor/Dire Space Hamster Home Living Habitat Extensions of the Realms".

So yet again, I'm not seeing anything particularly unique to Greyhawk about this.

I agree with you completely on this point, although it does have to be said that Gygax was very good at worldbuilding through the casual use of incidental details. Take the various artifacts in the 1e DMG as an example - each of them has no more that a paragraph or two of background fluff, but that fluff is usually powerful and very suggestive. Gygax was very, very skilled at packing a lot of suggestive details into a short space of text - just look at how short and terse the descriptions of each realm in the original Greyhawk Gazeteer actually were. Gygax mentions only a few specific details about each location - but they are usually the right details.

One of the things that characterizes Gygaxian fantasy for me is the way that he implies the existence of a whole world beyond the few details that he explicitly provides. I can't imagine Gary writing an entire article on 'Dire Space Hamster Home Living Habitat Extensions of Greyhawk' - he didn't feel the need to sketch out his setting in that level of obssessive detail.

Liberty's Edge

Prime Evil wrote:
My point is that even where Nightscreed is wrong, his (her?) point of view can provide a useful starting point for defining those qualities that define the Gygaxian style.

Not really. As I point out repeatedly, everything he cites is either standard for any reasonably put together campaign, directly contradicts another point he tries to assert, or is contradicted by his own analysis. And when you finally slog through all of that, all you really have left are cheap shots at FR. That does not define anything.

Prime Evil wrote:
I agree with you entirely on this point. Although it can perhaps be argued that Gygax himself was better at maintaining a sense of canon than most of those who worked on the Greyhawk product line after him. Nonetheless, this is probably the weakest point that Nightscreed makes.

Not really. Although it is persistently glossed over, the published Greyhawk setting was not Gary's home setting. There are major differences between the two.

Add in the exceptionally light content, the slew of unpublished apocrypha, and the material in the Gord books, and using the term "canon" to refer to what Gary wrote is pretty well a misnomer.

Prime Evil wrote:
I'm not sure that Gygaxian fantasy in general requires a slavish concern for internal consistency. If you look at . . .

Indeed it does not.

Indeed you describe his intent of game on the table precedence over rules adherence, with appropriate examples, quite properly.

Prime Evil wrote:
This should not be taken as unusual though. Whenever you deal with a published setting . . .

Again, precisely.

Prime Evil wrote:

. . .

And this is a hallmark of Gygaxian fantasy to me. Gygax communicates a sense that the PCs are the most active agents of change in the local area.
. . .

And a third time, exactly.

And that is precisely the distinction that Nightscreed completely missed.

Prime Evil wrote:

I agree with you entirely on this point, with the caveat that Gygax was exceptionally good at weaving new villains into his setting so that it felt like they had always been there. Gygax may have had some overall plan for the Greyhawk setting, but I doubt it. In the 1e DMG, he emphasized that:

. . .

In interviews, Gygax was consistently suspicious of the trend towards campaign metaplots.

Still completely on target.

The only thing I will note here is that last, which as previously, is pretty much an inherent distinction between a home campaign and a published product line.
And yet again something completely missed.

Prime Evil wrote:

Agreed. Although the supermodules do not represent the work of Gygax himself, it is true that he rarely implements an overarching plot structure to tie individual adventures together in a statisfying way.

Nonetheless, the activities of the player characters do have effects in the campaign world and these effects increase as the characters grow in power.

And Gygax often hinted at interconnections between different adventures, although he rarely developed them in the way that the later supermodules did. I suspect that he liked to keep his options as open as possible.

Yep. Again though, this plays back into that distinction between home and published as per resolution, and even more into the issue of a campaign metaplot in relation to both.

Prime Evil wrote:
I do think that Nightscreed hits the nail on the head with this one. Gygaxian fantasy often ascribes more importance to the various neutral alignments than any other D&D designer - he often seems to assume that most PCs will choose a neutral alignment and will act in a way dictated by mercenary self-interest.

Only in reference to the Gord books. Nothing of any sort is directly stated in the D&D products. And, using the apocrypha mentioned above, there is the nature of the NPCs in Hommlett who were intended to demonstrate and explain various alignments for the PCs, as well as statements from Gary himself that the whole point of the game was for Good to win and win big.

Gygaxian fantasy novels, sure.
Gygaxian fantasy RPGs, not really.

Prime Evil wrote:

I agree with you completely on this point, although it does have to be said that Gygax was very good at worldbuilding through the casual use of incidental details.

. . .

Of course he was! That is why so many of us are still playing his game and using his setting. It has become quite fashionable to dismiss Gary as a one trick pony and even to disparage that trick. Fortunately us old time D&D players are used to being unfashionable. ;)

Prime Evil wrote:
One of the things that characterizes Gygaxian fantasy for me is the way that he implies the existence of a whole world beyond the few details that he explicitly provides. I can't imagine Gary writing an entire article on 'Dire Space Hamster Home Living Habitat Extensions of Greyhawk' - he didn't feel the need to sketch out his setting in that level of obssessive detail.

Heh. Neither would Ed Greedwood. (I think.) I simply used it to demonstrate that personalizing a campaign is hardly unique, and that there are in fact people as or more prolific in producing such material as Gary was.

Also, I really like Spelljammer and wanted to throw a shout out to all dire space hamster fans out there. :D
And of course, it has a certain truth to it as well:

"Usually, the results are more or less like the normal sort of giant space space hamster, such as the wooly, mottled, ochre, Oriental, Occidental, chartreuse, spotted, not-quite-so-spotted, only-a-little-spotted, plain, cave-dwelling, three-toed, lesser, greater, greater lesser, lesser greater, albino, and flightless giant space hamsters. And then there are the really unusual varieties: such as the following:
Subterranean Giant Space hamster
Sabre-toothed Giant Space Hamster
Rather Wild Giant Space Hamster
Invisible Giant Space Hamster
Sylvan or Jungle Giant Space Hamster
Miniature Giat Space Hamster
Armor Plated Giant Space Hamster
Yello Musk Giant Space hamster
Ethereal Giant Space Space Hamster
Carnivorous Flying Giant Space Hamster (A "regrettable if understanding line of inquiry"
Two-Headed Lernean Bombadier Giant Space Hamster ("Well, we're certainly not likely to make this mistake again or at least not more than once again anyway."
Fire-Breathing Phase Doppleganger Giant Space Hamster (“We completely fail to see why everyone is so upset, especially since biology is such an inexact science and for every step we take forward there must be two steps backward but anyway we said we were sorry and we‘d like our funding back so we can pay our bail and go home.”)
Great Horned Giant Space Hamster
Abominable Giant Space Hamster
Tyrannohamsterus Rex ("because it was there."
Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen (aka, "Wooly Rupert")"

- Abbreviated from the "Hamster, Giant Space" entry in the Spelljammer Monstrous Compendium Appendix. Hamster created by Roger Moore. Anyone who make up a list like that could certainly write an article on 'Dire Space Hamster Home Living Habitat Extensions of Greyhawk', and probably enjoy himself silly doing so.
(And yes, I would be jealous.)


There are some excellent points in this thread. I think it's important to reiterate that the "Gygaxian Naturalism" style of play did allow for the game and campaign to change with the players' input.

Going from what I've read about original D&D, there are whole classes and races that were introduced to D&D because they reflected the interests of players - Monks because someone was a Kung Fu fan, Half-Elves because others were crazy for Tolkein et cetera.

With AD&D there may be a lot of tables to randomly generate everything from treasure to wandering monsters, but I'm sure these were meant to be a launching point for the imagination, not a straight jacket. Consider the example of generating a treasure in the 1st edition DM's Guide. Rather than just going through the monster's treasure type and explaining how the rolls work, Gygax riffed off the sort of things Hill Giants (or was it Ogres?) might steal from passing travellers - some money, a gold statuette, lots of trade goods etc.

For me, a key feature of a "Naturalist" style game (but not necessarily a "Gygaxian" one) is to give the impression that the creatures have a life outside the player characters' orbit. Part of this is having both powerful and weak monsters. Just because the party are too weak to fight an Owlbear doesn't mean that owlbears don't exist, rather than the DM avoiding putting an owlbear anywhere near their 1st level party, in a "Naturalism" game the owlbear lives in that cave at the top of the hill and a good DM should give the players enough clues that they can figure out to avoid it until they're ready.

Similarly, there should be level-appropriate encounters that the party are not required to fight - say, once they're 4th level they could take on that owlbear, but they've learned it has no treasure and the cave does not lead anywhere interesting, so they decide not to bother because there's nothing in it for them apart from some XPs.

Contrariwise, there are weak monsters who offer 'colour' rather than a real threat. How many times has the Ogre Manor had a kitchen with a staff of orcs and goblins? They're not there to be an effective challenge to the party's level, they're there because it's natural for an Ogre Baron to have a bunch of slaves to do his menial work.


Tarren Dei wrote:
"Working feverishly to keep ahead of the eager players, I created levels of the Greyhawk Castle dungeons at a rate of one a week. ... I populated levels hastily, generally without regard for 'ecology,' with an aim toward challenge, surprise, and diversity. ... The key was to make the encounter fun." (Gary Gygax, in Dragon #287, p. 26)

If I remember my D&D Ancient History 101, Castle Greyhawk is supposed to be un-ecological, as it is engineered by the whims and crazy genius of a super-archmage, Zagyg.

Of course, Zagyg is an anagram alter-ego for Gygax himself. And, in a stretch, the figure of Zagyg stands out as an allegory for the activity of a Dungeon Master in its bare bones: purveyor of monsters, treasures and dark corridors.
Thus, a place like Castle Greyhawk can be read as a meta-reflection on fantasy role-playing, or, if you want it, as a deconstruction of the genre. It stands out of the ecology and of any intentions of "fantasy naturalism".
The Gygax of Castle Greyhawk is reflecting or deconstructing the hobby; the Gygax who wrote paragraph after chapter on "the milieu" in the 1st ed DMG is constructing something, something which can be dismantled at any time by DM fiat as long as it is conductive to the fun of the game.
But one does not take away from the other. It would be hard to expect than in a world with demon lord, archmages and Wishes players had to be tied down to a single paradigm.

151 to 200 of 1,233 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 3.5/d20/OGL / 4E's Rejection of Gygaxian Naturalism All Messageboards