|
Right. Sorry for being less than clear. What I was trying to ask was, can something be considered "Gygaxian" and be in direct conflict with the deeds/products/views of Gygax?
Oh, that is easy.
Yes.
Gary's comments about how to use the game system constantly conflicted with how he ran the game as revealed in numerous anecdotes about said games.
For example, if someone claims that company produced campaign settings is not "Gygaxian" but we know that Gygax helped to make one of the first company produced campaign settings.
This however is a poor example, as Gary's comments are also quite easy to confuse as to their intent and context.
In particular any attitude towards published campaign settings has to constantly bear in mind numerous factors, most especially the need to make money.Greyhawk in particular is subject to an extreme and destructive version of this, as certain "fans" of the setting obsess excessively about playing it "exactly" the way Gary did despite such a version never existing, and cite the "make it your own" line despite Gary eventually producing adventures that reflected specific major campaign events in his game and even once presented specific PCs to play.
When you consider that the original set has vanishingly little content that actually supports the "Gygaxian Naturalism" concept, it confuses things even further. (Such content can easily by added by individual DMs, as it was added by subsequent authors. It is however simply not present in the original material.)
Of course on a certain level that means the concept is there, as the material gives you the framework to create your own campaign setting from the parts available. That would mean it both is and is not a campaign setting. If you think of it as "Here are a thousand proper nouns with some vague connections between them and a map", then it is a sample and starter set for making your own setting. If you think of it as "Here is the setting book of a continuing product line with content decided on by the company" then it is a campaign setting.
|
What I was trying to ask was, can something be considered "Gygaxian" and be in direct conflict with the deeds/products/views of Gygax? For example, if someone claims that company produced campaign settings is not "Gygaxian" but we know that Gygax helped to make one of the first company produced campaign settings.
In the context of this very limited discussion, where Gygaxian Naturalism has a very specific definition, sure.
Outside of that narrow scope, Gygax himself wrote a *ton* of stuff that throws 'Gygaxian Naturalism' right the hell out of the water (which I mentioned upthread in my critique of Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth).
He wrote a lot of very gamist stuff that had little or no bearing on a sense of 'naturalism,' such as the Drow, who had armor and weapons that vanished when they died, spell resistance, better inherent fighting abilities than a human of their level, a bunch of spells usable regardless of their class, magic resistance, hard to beat sleep poison that was super-cheap (for them), ubiqitous, and not usable by the players, etc. All of these choices weren't made for 'naturalist' reasons, even if some really shallow nods to naturalism were made (underdark radiations! Which don't seem to have any effect at all on Duergar, Svirfneblin or 'standard' Dwarf craftsmanship, but, oh, look, it's Elvis! <runs away>). The Drow were the ultimate 'spoiler' monster, created to challenge a mid to high level party, without giving them too much loot.
While it's currently trendy, thanks, in part, to the polarizing news cycle in this country, to take an 'us vs. them' black and white right-or-wrong approach to everything under the sun, and deem them mutually incompatible, Gygax, like most gamers, was both a fan of 'naturalism' in some aspects, and 'gamism' in others. Neither is evil. An excess of either can choke the creativity and fun right out of a game.
Rules, systems and charts for the sake of having more rules, systems and charts are 'eh' and while I've got no problem with a 'resource map' that shows what goods are produced / exported / imported to or from what countries (since that might be cool for when the party are on that old 'caravan guard duty' mission), when the fiddly lists break down to weather charts for each region, my eyes start to cross and I wish there was a cartoon there about a Backscratcher +2 or whatever.
A game world that doesn't make a lick of sense also can be off-putting. Ideally, the game setting should make enough sense that it doesn't detract from the players ability to 'get into' the setting and 'get into' their characters.
Any game setting worth it's salt inspires many great character ideas, just by reading the country descriptions and thinking, 'Oh, those albino wolf-women of the Frost Barbarians sound awesome!' or 'Ooh, cannibalistic jungle-dwelling halflings!' or 'Ancient *Orcish* Druidic orders pledged to protect the natural world from outsiders!'
And so the 'fluff' serves a purpose. I think it's telling how *awesome* the rules mechanics of GURPS are compared to any iteration of D&D or AD&D, and yet how they have failed to grip the market, due to, IMO, their less-than-inspiring settings. Vampire swings the other way, with great vigor. Beautiful sourcebooks that many fans end up buying just to *read* (self included, as my complete collections of Mage: the Ascencion, Kindred of the East and Wraith: the Oblivion, games I've never played, will attest), and yet some game mechanics that are less than glorious.
As someone who wants *both* gamist and 'naturalist' aspects in a game (and not to be talked down to and told to 'do it yourself' by someone who wants me to pay good money for their product), a game that only caters to half of the taste buds in my mouth is going to be passed over for one that satisfies all of my cravings.
[This isn't a slam at 4E, btw. I still haven't bought the books, so I can't state one way or the other if 4E has enough 'naturalist' elements to satisfy me. Right now I just don't have the cash to splurge on books I won't be using immediately, as I did when I bought all of that White Wolf stuff, although I have every intention of picking up the Scarred Lands conversions for 4E coming out from the guys who picked up that license.]
Let us not forget that Master Gygax wrote, ran, and commented on games for ~30 years, and no doubt his opinions, tastes, and immediate needs fluctuated wildly over time.
-The Gneech
Given the above posts about the contradictions in using a term such as "Gygaxian", perhaps it should just be dropped all together.
To be honest when people start throwing around Gygax's name, it sounds to me more about trying to get some kind of "gamer cred" than actually meaningful description.
It seems to me there has been a lot of meaningful description on this thread that stands on its own, regardless of this particular term.
The use of Gygax's name. . . Semantics. The devil's volleyball.
If a reader found it too distracting, he/she might simply reread the thread, omitting "gygaxian" and reading "naturalism".
EDIT: I am not arguing either that it should/should not, does/does not distract. I am merely making a recommendation for readers, if such there be, who find the term distracting.
|
The use of the word Gygaxian adds meaning and clarity. There's little purpose in name dropping for any other benefit here. There has also been a lot of meaningful discussion in this thread.
Additionally, I'd like to add to our dialogue the following quote from the Joystiq article, Off the Grid: Gygaxian Game Design:
"But perhaps it was the tension between anarchic and rule-bound play that made Gygax such a potent designer. Whether digital or non-digital, games are constantly walking the fine line of "constrained freedom." Gary Gygax was one of the first designers to walk that line with unabashed confidence. Perhaps that -- more than 20-sided dice, or stacks of rulebooks, or dungeon-crawling elves -- can be considered truly Gygaxian."
Food for thought? The article was written by Scott Jon Siegal just after Gary's passing this year.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Well, I think "Gygaxian" keeps us rooted in the kind of attention to details that you'd find in 1st Edition AD&D books and early adventures. There's an entirely different type of details provided in, say, Greenwood's Realms, Hickman and Weis' Krynn, or Baker's Eberron.*
It's true that Gygax broke with that at times (and the World of Greyhawk Gazetteer may not be the best example, because it's not supposed to be a player aid; I'd use either "White Plume Mountain" or the "dungeonland" modules as a better counterexample) and that other people (Rob Kuntz, Len Lakofka (modules L1-2), Zeb Cook (module I-1)) understood the topic and ran with it at least as well as Gary.
But when Gygax was working at the top of his game, his work provided really clear examples of that we're talking about, and nobody was doing anything like it before Arnesson and Gygax.
--+--+--
* "Different how?" In Gygax's adventures, things happen off stage because of player interaction with the world. In the Realms, and particularly in Krynn, things happen offstage for reasons completely unconnected to the PCs.
--+--+--
Here's a thought: the Guide to Old School Gaming that Prime Evil referenced is all sorts of germaine to this topic.
After reading it, I wonder if it's even possible to run a "naturalist" world using 3.5 mechanics, because the 3.5 rules replace a, well, a simulationist, tactile feel for the world, with a mechanical interface. Because of this, there's almost no chance of the PCs accidentally causing repercussions, and incidental details unconnected with the game mechanics become nothing but window-dressing.
Thanks for your contributions, Chris. Let me take the easy one: Is it possible to run a naturalistic game using the 3.5 mechanics? Yes. The DMs and players in my circle have been doing it for years, as we dropped both 1e & 2e games and switched to 3.5 only. Now, there might be a tougher question hiding behind this: how much of it is already in the mechanics, and how much of it do we ourselves draw out of the mechanics by developing our own reasons for why things are the way they are (including inspiration from various sources, including previous editions)? Off-the-cuff, and in a period when I am writing more than full time and not regularly gaming, I don't know what the percentage for each would be in this breakdown. I could only confidently say, "some of each." If others have a feel for this, I would be interested in hearing.
|
I, too, prefer seat-of-the-pants DMing. A system bogged down with too many rigid rules stifles me.
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 DM quite frequently "by the seat of my pants" (using 3.x), and I have to say, that IN NO WAY do I fee "stifled" by the system. I would also argue that if a poll of 3.x DMs here (just on this thread alone) was done, it would garner that many of them do (DM by the seat of their pants), and feel likewise (that it is not stifling)...
Not saying your findings are wrong (your mileage may vary)...
I however, just don't see how it could happen (unless one lets the rules stifle them)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
Given the above posts about the contradictions in using a term such as "Gygaxian", perhaps it should just be dropped all together.
To be honest when people start throwing around Gygax's name, it sounds to me more about trying to get some kind of "gamer cred" than actually meaningful description.
There certainly are dangers in using the term 'Gygaxian', but I believe that the term still has value, especially insofar as it refers to a particular style of adventure that characterized a (sadly) brief period in Gygax's career as an author. I use the term to refer to the brief time in the late 1970s and early 1980s when everything that he touched turned to gold.
Sure, Gygax couldn't sustain this level of creative quality for more than a couple of years .... and his output dropped off as he was badly burned by gradual loss of control over of TSR Hobbies. It also has to be admitted that he later had a hand in some sub-standard products (such as the truly wretched Cyborg Commando RPG), although he seemed to be returning to form in the last few years of his life. It also has to be admitted that he didn't always consistently live up to the design principles that he preached.
But it should be acknowledged that he produced some evocative work whose emotional power has rarely been equalled by other RPG designers. It never ceases to astonish me just how short and disciplined some of the best adventures written by Gygax actually are. If you read one of the classic 'Gygaxian' modules carefully, you will find that barely a single word is wasted. And he leaves a tremendous amount up to the judgement of the individual GM.
In his best moments, Gygax could synthesize a range of influences drawn from Sword & Sorcery fiction to produce something startlingly vibrant. For example, the description of the subterranean Drow city of Erelhei-Cinlu in D3: Vault of the Drow achieves more in a few dense paragraphs than many subsequent works achieve in entire books. In these early modules, Gygax had a real knack for knowing which aspects of an adventure setting to highlight in order to build atmosphere and which to leave to the imagination of the DM. And he got away with a lot of this stuff because he came up with material that was freaking cool ... and it built on people's expectations of the pulp fantasy genre.
While writing this post, it occurs to me that any game that has been around as long as D&D and has had such a strong influence on popular culture runs a risk of becoming a parody of itself over time. The conventions of the game can become so ingrained that each new iteration merely goes through the motions rather than going back to the original source material that inspired the conventions of the game in the first place. Obviously many of the people working on the current edition of D&D have a deep love for the game and are taking it in a direction that they believe is essential for it's long-term survival, but I personally find their interpretation rootless in the sense that it is disconnected from the literary material that gave rise to D&D in the first place.
Personally, I would *love* to see the inclusion of a Recommended Reading list in the forthcoming Pathfinder RPG similar to the one in the 1st edition DMG (hint, hint).
The term "Gygaxian" isn't just self-important puffery; it carries a very definite meaning, just as might "Arnesonian" or "Hargravian" or any of a dozen new adjectives I could coin to describe a particular style of design and play from the early days of the hobby. Every writer/designer has his own unique approach to D&D and Gary, due to his preeminent position within the hobby in the late 70s and early 80s, was able to elevate his approach to the point where, for a large number of gamers, it became synonymous with the game itself -- so much so that the turning away from that approach is a frustration and a disappointment.
That's not to say that the Gygaxian approach to anything was or should be normative. Nevertheless, to deny that there is such a thing as a Gygaxian approach to game/adventure design is to deny (or at least be unfamiliar with) the history of the hobby.
Speaking of which --
Personally, I would *love* to see the inclusion of a Recommended Reading list in the forthcoming Pathfinder RPG similar to the one in the 1st edition DMG (hint, hint).
I'd frankly be amazed if there weren't such a list in the release version of Pathfinder. Erik is too much a student of pulp fantasy not to follow in the Dungeon Master's footsteps and include a recommended reading list. In some ways, the entire Planet Stories line is an homage to Appendix N and I'm grateful for that.
Personally, I would *love* to see the inclusion of a Recommended Reading list in the forthcoming Pathfinder RPG similar to the one in the 1st edition DMG (hint, hint).I'd frankly be amazed if there weren't such a list in the release version of Pathfinder. Erik is too much a student of pulp fantasy not to follow in the Dungeon Master's footsteps and include a recommended reading list. In some ways, the entire Planet Stories line is an homage to Appendix N and I'm grateful for that.
I think you hit on what is the most likely to happen. The "list" will most likely be an advertisement for Planet Stories.
I think you hit on what is the most likely to happen. The "list" will most likely be an advertisement for Planet Stories.Personally, I would *love* to see the inclusion of a Recommended Reading list in the forthcoming Pathfinder RPG similar to the one in the 1st edition DMG (hint, hint).I'd frankly be amazed if there weren't such a list in the release version of Pathfinder. Erik is too much a student of pulp fantasy not to follow in the Dungeon Master's footsteps and include a recommended reading list. In some ways, the entire Planet Stories line is an homage to Appendix N and I'm grateful for that.
Why the cynicism, pres man? While I would not be surprised, or upset, to see ads at the end of the final PfRPG, Paizo has a pretty solid record of recommending outside sources in their works. (For example, through the PfAP, I have become aware of other monster books.)
Hey, some *great* new posts, folks. Yay!
I think you hit on what is the most likely to happen. The "list" will most likely be an advertisement for Planet Stories.Personally, I would *love* to see the inclusion of a Recommended Reading list in the forthcoming Pathfinder RPG similar to the one in the 1st edition DMG (hint, hint).I'd frankly be amazed if there weren't such a list in the release version of Pathfinder. Erik is too much a student of pulp fantasy not to follow in the Dungeon Master's footsteps and include a recommended reading list. In some ways, the entire Planet Stories line is an homage to Appendix N and I'm grateful for that.Why the cynicism, pres man? While I would not be surprised, or upset, to see ads at the end of the final PfRPG, Paizo has a pretty solid record of recommending outside sources in their works. (For example, through the PfAP, I have become aware of other monster books.)
Hey, some *great* new posts, folks. Yay!
Why do you assume cynicism? As James said, the planet stories are already doing a good job of providing suggested reading, why not kill two birds with one stone?
Why do you assume cynicism? As James said, the planet stories are already doing a good job of providing suggested reading, why not kill two birds with one stone?
I just meant, your doubting a real reading list, as I take your placing of list in quotes to indicate. (I hope you took it only as interpretation and not impugnment.)
Of course, the need for the reading list was greater in the original DMG than it would be in today's PfRPG, but the good thing about a list as opposed to ads only is the breadth issue: Planet Stories are a great introduction to pulp, but not for other areas, such as high fantasy. (Of course, it could be argued that movies are now providing the introduction to the latter...but I for one would be unhappy with such an assumption.) While I think such a list is an unnecessary distraction in the alpha and beta stages (what I take to be behind James' statement), with so much work on the staff and more important things to do, it would be a nice spot of polish on the finished product.
Of course, the need for the reading list was greater in the original DMG than it would be in today's PfRPG
I'd argue the opposite quite strongly. In 1979, when the DMG was first published, it's quite likely that more players of D&D would have been familiar with Gygax's literary inspirations than they would be today. How many gamers nowadays have even heard of Abraham Merritt, let alone read The Moon Pool, which was a seminal influence on Gygax and the game he created?
Speaking as someone who prefers the original feel of D&D, I think a recommended reading list is even more necessary in 2008 than it was 30 years ago, because most of the books and authors whose stories shaped the beginning of this hobby are unknown to gamers today and that's a shame.
I'd argue the opposite quite strongly.
Interesting. At the time, I was thinking how, when D&D became such a cultural phenomenon so quickly, that the list connected a fantasy-naive public with its literary roots and gave them inspiration for gaming, as compared to now, when fantasy is a more regular trope in tv, films, and a much larger publishing phenomenon. (I think many of us were introduced to works through that list. At the time, for example, I had only read mythology and classic adventure stories.)
But I am all for steps that keep the ol' time spirit.
At the time, I was thinking how, when D&D became such a cultural phenomenon so quickly, that the list connected a fantasy-naive public with its literary roots and gave them inspiration for gaming, as compared to now, when fantasy is a more regular trope in tv, films, and a much larger publishing phenomenon.
I agree that the post-D&D world we live in is more broadly accepting and knowledgeable of certain fantasy tropes, because of the game's faddish popularity in the late 70s/early 80s. The problem -- for me anyway -- is that the fantasy most people are familiar with is both a caricature that bears little resemblance to D&D or, more strongly, to the pulp fantasies that inspired Gygax and form the "literary DNA" of the game.
I guess what I'm saying is that if, like me, you see D&D as something other than a "generic" fantasy RPG, the popularization of certain fantasy tropes in the wake of the game's early success is actually an impediment to bringing the game back to its roots. There are now multiple gamer "generations" for whom the true literary origins of the game mean nothing and who conceive of "D&D" as something very different than how Gygax did back in the early 70s.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I was thinking how, when D&D became such a cultural phenomenon so quickly, that the list connected a fantasy-naive public with its literary roots and gave them inspiration for gaming, as compared to now, when fantasy is a more regular trope in tv, films, and a much larger publishing phenomenon.
There's a lot more fantasy out these days, and f&sf movies are common enough that people don't blink an eye when movie theatres are showing nothing but genre films.
But in the late 1960's and '70's there was a "pulp resurgence" in fantasy paperbacks, and a lot of work from the 40's was reprinted. So, if you're looking to read the kind of stuff that Gygax was reading when he was deciding what kind of fantasy world to emulate, and what kinds of things magic ought to do, the DMG "inspirational Reading" list points you to those sources.
Toby, I think you have the 'Fourth Wall' all backward, especially your use of the 'Breaking the Fourth Wall' within B. Brecht's work.
** LINK **
What you describe is exactly the opposite of Breaking the Fourth Wall, as to do so would be to interact with the audience.
It's quite possible that I've got it all wrong - it's been over a decade since I studied this. However, as I understand it, what you describe is what I meant about breaking the fourth wall, that in non-Gygaxian Naturalistic games, it is possible for characters to reference events that do not exist within the bounds of the story.
I can't think of any game I've played in where a character has directly addressed one of the players, but I have played in games where a character (not player) has made some meta-game* statement which makes sense within the context of the game. I would class this kind of event as breaking the fourth wall.
Hopefully I've clarified my position on this and haven't sidetracked the discussion too much!
* I am not talking about meta-gaming on the part of the players, which I consider to be something slightly different.
Edit: Back onto the main topic - I have been reading quite a few older fantasy novels recently (for the first time), and I would agree that their feel is how I think D&D "ought" to be
|
|
I'd argue the opposite quite strongly.
I agree. Number one example with a bullet, for me, would be Vancian magic. There have been hundreds of fantasy novels, cartoons, comics, films, etc. in the last 20 or so years, and not a single one of them has had the slightest inclination to a 'study, cast and forget' magical system. Harry Potter doesn't memorize and forget spells. Pug / Milamber doesn't memorize and forget spells. Chameleon didn't memorize and forget his spell. Alanon and Gandalf and Rand al'Thor and Eragon and Polgara and Harry Dresden and Willow Rosenberg don't whip out spellbooks and prepare their spells, and then forget them when they're cast.
The very idea of Vancian magic is alien to pretty much any fantasy written by anyone not named Vance, and anyone who didn't get exposed to it from the writings of Jack Vance or from AD&D, is going to wonder why all wizards aren't like Warlocks, or 4e Wizards, able to just throw spells all day long, and perhaps suffering some sort of strain or 'magical fatigue' or something for more dramatic effects. (I'm sure that there are exceptions, such as the 'hung' spells of later Amber books by Zelazny, but the *vast* majority of fantasy magic-users don't use anything like the Vancian memorization mechanic.)
The Paladin, as written into D&D, is informed quite strongly from the character in Three Hearts and Three Lions, and I suspect that many of those who clamor for Chaotic Good 'Paladins' or Lawful Evil 'Paladins' are unfamiliar with the very specific inspiration for the class. (On the other hand, that's at least a little bit of a generalization, since I'm all for 'holy warriors' of other alignments, and I read Three Hearts & Three Lions as a kid.) I'm also pretty sure that the Gnome and the Troll, as depicted in AD&D, were entirely from that same book, which is why the Troll of AD&D looks nothing like a nordic troll or a Lord of the Rings troll.
The concepts of Law and Chaos as relevant alignment choices are almost exclusive to the works of Michael Moorcock, and, oh look, here comes 4th edition, which has stepped away from some of the sacred cows of old D&D and gotten rid of Lawful and Chaotic alignments *and* Vancian spellcasting *and* the Gnome as a standard player option.
Note that I'm not saying that any of these changes are necessarily bad (you'll be hard pressed to find someone who likes Vancian magic or the alignment system more than me!). But the designers of 4th edition clearly drew from different wells than the designers of 'old-school' Dungeons & Dragons, and the game they have designed is informed by newer ideas.
So yeah, a bibliography might prove useful to inform a new generation as to *why* a Paladin is Lawful Good, and *why* magical patterns are impressed onto the mind of a spellcaster for only a short time, and then expended upon their use, and *why* there are alignments based on 'law' and 'chaos.'
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's quite possible that I've got it all wrong - it's been over a decade since I studied this. However, as I understand it, what you describe is what I meant about breaking the fourth wall, that in non-Gygaxian Naturalistic games, it is possible for characters to reference events that do not exist within the bounds of the story.
I can't think of any game I've played in where a character has directly addressed one of the players, but I have played in games where a character (not player) has made some meta-game* statement which makes sense within the context of the game. I would class this kind of event as breaking the fourth wall.
I see where you're coming from, Toby. Thank you for the explanation.
This is all a matter of terminology, but, let's look at an example from theatre. If the character of Wang explains something to Shen Te, that's simple exposition. But if Wang turns and assresses the audience, that's "breaking the (imaginary) 4th wall" between the characters and the audience. In the extreme case, the characters become aware that they are on a stage, surrounded by an audience of strangers.
When John Byrne wrote "She-Hulk", he would often have characters stop and address the audience, or do things by making direct use of the fact that they were in a comic book (eacaping a trap by "jumping forward to page 11").
In an RPG, it would indeed be like having Wang, a water carrier waiting outside the city, turn and address the players around the table directly. "At least I'm haulin' water over the city an' makin' myself useful, while you all just sit 'round a table and eat those disgustin' cheese puffs."
If I were to use theatrical terms for naturalism, I'd talk about "representationalism", where the NPC or monster you encounter represents some more multi-faceted character, versus a board-game "presentationalism", where the threat you face it the whole of the thing itself.
The very idea of Vancian magic is alien to pretty much any fantasy written by anyone not named Vance, and anyone who didn't get exposed to it from the writings of Jack Vance or from AD&D... (I'm sure that there are exceptions, such as the 'hung' spells of later Amber books by Zelazny, but the *vast* majority of fantasy magic-users don't use anything like the Vancian memorization mechanic.)
As a critical exception, John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost (1969, almost 20 years after the first publication of "Mazirian the Magician" but long before D&D) comes strongly to mind: "That morning, Prospero sat in his garden, memorizing spells..." The wizards had actual spellbooks (just like in the Player's Handbook), they had arcane-bond staves (much as the Beta describes) instead of familiars, and were adept at item crafting. Gygax listed that as another major influence on D&D wizards, BTW, and it's nice that the item crafting bonus feats in 3e carried it forward (and PF as well).
How many gamers nowadays have even heard of Abraham Merritt, let alone read The Moon Pool, which was a seminal influence on Gygax and the game he created?
I've read it, although I'd argue that Merritt's Dwellers in the Mirage far more closely resembles the D&D game.
|
|
As James said, the planet stories are already doing a good job of providing suggested reading, why not kill two birds with one stone?
I think the reason is that Paizo does not hold the rights to all of the works in Appendix N. For example, Paizo has you covered if you want some Leigh Brackett...but they can't help you if you're after some Edgar Rice Burroughs. There are a number of niche publishers who are keeping other early genre classics in print - NightShade Books springs to mind instantly.
As a critical exception, John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost (1969, almost 20 years after the first publication of "Mazirian the Magician" but long before D&D) comes strongly to mind: "That morning, Prospero sat in his garden, memorizing spells..." The wizards had actual spellbooks (just like in the Player's Handbook), they had arcane-bond staves (much as the Beta describes) instead of familiars, and were adept at item crafting. Gygax listed that as another major influence on D&D wizards, BTW, and it's nice that the item crafting bonus feats in 3e carried it forward (and PF as well)
Yes, Bellairs was definitely a strong influence on the game's conception of magic, as were the Harold Shea stories of Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp.
I've read it, although I'd argue that Merritt's Dwellers in the Mirage far more closely resembles the D&D game.
I agree with you, but Gary always listed The Moon Pool as more significant whenever he talked about Merritt. I wish I knew why.
|
|
There's a great essay written by Daniel R. Collins around 1996 or so entitled 'What Made Original D&D Great'. I'm not sutre whether this is still available online, but it contains some good thoughts on the qualities that define the 'Gygaxian' approach.
Here's some relevant quotes, edited to take out the material inbetween:
DEPTH OF THE GAME CAMPAIGN. One of the most effective devices that E. Gary Gygax (henceforth, EGG) used to give the AD&D game a marvelous (read: ancient, arcane, mysterious) feeling of depth and complexity was this: the inclusion of items, adventures, and scenes that might not be found by players. That is, there were some mysteries in the World of Greyhawk campaign that indeed might only be found by the most creative and inspired and skillful players, and missed by all others: it was indeed very special if these mysteries were found out. Contrast this with the motivation most module designers have, either based on a sensation that any important campaign point (that is, time spent designing) should be revealed to players, or else a need for the players to succeed and proceed to the next module in a series (or episode in an adventure), which generally directs the players into pre-orchestrated modes of action.
EGG's general strategy was to design worlds and campaigns, filled with many different interesting locations and sites, and then leave it to the players to turn whither they would, and bypass whatever they wanted. Note that in this game design philosophy, (1) the players are proactive, in control, and not constrained by some foreordained timeline (say, engineered by a proactive evil figure) and (2) the narrative (as per a fantasy "story" or "novel") is not predetermined or in any way certain. This is a very postmodern movement.
Note also that EGG has in fact made for a rather poor novelist for exactly this reason: "Saga of Old City" (his first book) is disjointed and meandering in precisely this way, and his later works ("Dangerous Journeys") suffer in the same fashion (or else from the Asimovian disease of seemingly being written all in one sitting, and having only one climactic moment).
PLAYER PROACTIVITY. As stated previously, it seems that anything promoting player proactivity makes the campaign more exciting: as it is precisely this allowance for multiple people to participate in the construction of the drama which separates RPG's from novels or movies (and even such advances as hypertext nonlinear narrative -- because there is always a real present moment, in which decisions could be made differently, or outcomes to occur differently).
In this respect, the design of dungeons (static locations) is important in order to (1) make PCs proactive, making the decision to move and adventure wholly theirs and (2) at the same time make the world manageable for DMs (as it is unreasonable to expect DMs to plan out continuing movements, migrations, and gained experience all the time over a whole world -- setting up static areas at least reduces the DMs work necessary to a finite, if large, amount). To a certain extent, one must be willing to "waste" effort in the sense of designing sufficient areas that PCs will probably not explore them all.
NO NARRATIVE. The downfall of many adventures has been the attempt by the writer to write a story in which the players could participate: this always leads to player reactivity and dissatisfaction. Ideally, the adventure writer (or module publisher) should produce a number of static adventure locales for the DM to stock his/her world with, and leave several clues in different places directing interested players to each. Few writers are willing to do this, however, and few publishing firms are willing to allow this, as it makes purchase of each new product very optional (whereas a series of sequels mandates purchase for full utilization of any one part).
The susceptibility of games to this disease is clear. To a publishing house, "breathe new life" into a game system means to sell more product, preferably the higher-priced campaign boxed sets. The strategy to this end is something like this: radically "update" or alter the campaign setting (and thereafter, all adventures and accessories), thus "mandating" that interested players purchase the update. The strategy, it seems, backfires: after the initial burst of product sold in the move, ultimately one loses total consumer base. Only some percentage of the previous gamers will purchase the new setting; those that decide not to are henceforth out of the game and won't be engaging in forthcoming product purchases. It seems highly unlikely that new customers will be attracted.
ADULT THEMES. If one is writing or running a fantasy game, some of the most engrossing elements are those of dark magic, faerie races, demons, and ancient temples to lost gods. More than anything, these are the elements that lend the all-important sense of awe, wonder, and cosmic mystery to a story. Additionally, I propose that these are precisely the elements which have made the fantasy RPG the most durable and vibrant of all RPG genres: the physical existence of sentient gods and cosmic forces and blatant evils presents the greatest departure of place from the roles of students and workers in late 20th century developed states. The proper development of such themes must include such adult themes as scenes of (either threat or evidence of past) torture, sacrifice, violence, black magic, and sexual overtones; such activities actually occurred in the past, and the lack of such threats makes the evils not very much worth fighting against.
In the early days (the time of origins, perhaps, that mythic innocent condition) of RPG publishing, the adult writers were free to include such themes in the D&D works. I recall when the original "Eldritch Sorcery" booklet appeared in my hobby shop, complete with a completely naked woman prostrate on an altar on the cover! This kind of art (and the other stylized art forms which gave such a wonderful sense of the ancient, such as Erol Otus' excellent work) gave the rules and modules a palpable sense of danger, rawness, and excitement.
As is well known, such imagery caused fantastic consternation among conservative and religious groups when the game form became popular among adolescent males in the late 1970's and early 1980's. TSR's response (around 1984 and on) was a "juvenilization" of the game, erasing adult themes, a promise to clothe women on the "Dragon" covers more fully, and mandates in the "Dragon" writer's guidelines to avoid all references to specific evil practices, successful evil figures, any reference to "gods" (in exchange for "powers" or "entities"), and basically making the game a PG or PG-13 version acceptable to all parents.
Now, precisely one of the most creative areas that EGG excelled at was in creating myths, stories about gods and unearthly places, and most of all, detailing the foes of humanity in demons, daemons, and devils of every sort.
|
|
As a critical exception, John Bellairs' The Face in the Frost (1969, almost 20 years after the first publication of "Mazirian the Magician" but long before D&D) comes strongly to mind: "That morning, Prospero sat in his garden, memorizing spells..." The wizards had actual spellbooks (just like in the Player's Handbook), they had arcane-bond staves (much as the Beta describes) instead of familiars, and were adept at item crafting. Gygax listed that as another major influence on D&D wizards, BTW, and it's nice that the item crafting bonus feats in 3e carried it forward (and PF as well).
I'm not sure if Prospero, in that section, is memorizing spells in a Vancian manner, or if he's studying them so as to be able to cast them from memory. Certainly a lot of the rest of the magic seemed to depend on some variety of internal power; the scene in the storm sewer where he (or Roger Bacon; I can't remember now) blacks out the tunnel, and the point very near the end (attempting to avoid spoilers) when he's stuck in a snowstorm and realizes he's got no magical power left.
Yes, Bellairs was definitely a strong influence on the game's conception of magic, as were the Harold Shea stories of Fletcher Pratt and L. Sprague de Camp.
I have to disagree with the latter, but only with regards to the magic system: the use of medieval-style "sympathetic magic" in making peach brandy for the Faerie Queene court, for example, is awfully far from D&D wizardry. However, I'd agree strongly that the "Compleat Enchanter" stories certainly had a key influence on setting design and especially on Gygax's loose, slightly disjointed, protagonist-driven storylines (somehow, events are more or less static among "NPCs," until the "PCs" show up... which is a key aspect of both the Harold Shea stories and of D&D).
Certainly a lot of the rest of the magic seemed to depend on some variety of internal power; the scene in the storm sewer where he (or Roger Bacon; I can't remember now) blacks out the tunnel, and the point very near the end (attempting to avoid spoilers) when he's stuck in a snowstorm and realizes he's got no magical power left.
True enough; that's hard to reconcile. One could also point out the breaking of the bridge as an example of impromptu magic. Then again, no game will perfectly match a novel... and a system with some prepared, some impromptu magic would have been a nightmare to constuct and play, in the early beginnings of the game.
Well, I think "Gygaxian" keeps us rooted in the kind of attention to details that you'd find in 1st Edition AD&D books and early adventures. There's an entirely different type of details provided in, say, Greenwood's Realms, Hickman and Weis' Krynn, or Baker's Eberron.
I think this is a very important point. I do think that the term "Gygaxian Naturalism" is too restrictive, and that the general concept should be referred to as "naturalism" as a whole; a shift this thread has already made. But naturalism can exist in a number of different forms, one of them being Gygaxian.
I can't tell if this is apparent to everyone else yet or not, but since there has been no explicit mention, I'll go ahead and make it. It seems that this term, "naturalism," is another facet of the same game design philosophy that includes "gamist," "narrativist," and "simulationist" approaches. In a naturalist game, the creation of a believable and dynamic world/eco-system is the predominant concern. Taken to the extreme, it would lack any and all plot, rather taking the form of seemingly random choices and occurences. Play-balance and adherence to the physical realities we know would be non-factors, included only insofar as they did not hinder the development of a thriving, believable world system.
Obviously, no (good) games take such a form. Rather, they are a mix of certain gamist, simulationist, naturalist, and narrativist elements.
I have to disagree with the latter, but only with regards to the magic system: the use of medieval-style "sympathetic magic" in making peach brandy for the Faerie Queene court, for example, is awfully far from D&D wizardry. me.
I was thinking more broadly of the way verbal, material, and somatic components were introduced into AD&D. Gygax claimed, if I recall, that he got the idea in part from the Harold Shea stories, but it's possible I'm misremembering.
I was thinking more broadly of the way verbal, material, and somatic components were introduced into AD&D. Gygax claimed, if I recall, that he got the idea in part from the Harold Shea stories, but it's possible I'm misremembering.
Ooh! I hadn't thought of that aspect, but that's a great point. I'll have to go back and read them again now...
I can't tell if this is apparent to everyone else yet or not, but since there has been no explicit mention, I'll go ahead and make it. It seems that this term, "naturalism," is another facet of the same game design philosophy that includes "gamist," "narrativist," and "simulationist" approaches. In a naturalist game, the creation of a believable and dynamic world/eco-system is the predominant concern. Taken to the extreme, it would lack any and all plot, rather taking the form of seemingly random choices and occurences. Play-balance and adherence to the physical realities we know would be non-factors, included only insofar as they did not hinder the development of a thriving, believable world system.
If we slot it into these categories then I think it would not be its own category at all but really an aspect of simulationism. Its essentially part and parcel of a game design theory that might also emphasize how armour works or includes rules for the effects of weather on combat or travel times.
Noisily scarfs down pulpy goodness of thread.
|
|
I was thinking more broadly of the way verbal, material, and somatic components were introduced into AD&D. Gygax claimed, if I recall, that he got the idea in part from the Harold Shea stories, but it's possible I'm misremembering.
In one of the Dragon Annuals, two or three, I think, Gary has an article about that very thing (the origin of verbal, somatic and material components). I'm too darn lazy to go look it up though...
If we slot it into these categories then I think it would not be its own category at all but really an aspect of simulationism. Its essentially part and parcel of a game design theory that might also emphasize how armour works or includes rules for the effects of weather on combat or travel times.
I can't tell if this is apparent to everyone else yet or not, but since there has been no explicit mention, I'll go ahead and make it. It seems that this term, "naturalism," is another facet of the same game design philosophy that includes "gamist," "narrativist," and "simulationist" approaches. In a naturalist game, the creation of a believable and dynamic world/eco-system is the predominant concern. Taken to the extreme, it would lack any and all plot, rather taking the form of seemingly random choices and occurences. Play-balance and adherence to the physical realities we know would be non-factors, included only insofar as they did not hinder the development of a thriving, believable world system.
But simulationism typically puts an emphasis on using rule-sets to resolve the outcomes of actions and events. So far, it really appears that naturalism doesn't do this. Further, simulationism typically concerns itself with things such as physics and chemistry within the game, which is likewise not the real concerns of naturalism. Certainly it shares elements with simulationism: the desire for a believable, internally consistent world which mimics our understanding of the reality we live in. But simulationism also contains gamist elements in its greater focus on mechanics. Gamist and simulationist philosophy have totally different goals and methods of implementation; so, too, naturalism and simulationism.
And let's not forget narrativism, which typically shuns the use of hard-set rules in favor of whatever makes for a compelling story. The lack of focus on mechanics gives narrativism as much of a claim on naturalism as simulationism does, but I don't think naturalism can truly be considered a subset of either (and gamism is right out). I will concede that simulationism does easily lend itself to the macro-level consideration of economics, which blurs the lines somewhat, and I could possibly accept naturalism being a style which falls between and merges the philosophies of simulationism and narrativism.
But in truth, I think it has its own thesis on "what is most important in a game," and thus deserves a place with the other three facets. Thoughts?
But simulationism typically puts an emphasis on using rule-sets to resolve the outcomes of actions and events. So far, it really appears that naturalism doesn't do this. Further, simulationism typically concerns itself with things such as physics and chemistry within the game, which is likewise not the real concerns of naturalism. Certainly it shares elements with simulationism: the desire for a believable, internally consistent world which mimics our understanding of the reality we live in. But simulationism also contains gamist elements in its greater focus on mechanics. Gamist and simulationist philosophy have totally different goals and methods of implementation; so, too, naturalism and simulationism.
And let's not forget narrativism, which typically shuns the use of hard-set rules in favor of whatever makes for a compelling story. The lack of focus on mechanics gives narrativism as much of a claim on naturalism as simulationism does, but I...
Hmm. I'm not sure I see the distinction between simulationism and naturalism, but this may be because of the generally broad way I use "naturalism," per above. I would say there is a two-way feedback between rules and flavor on the one side, and the sense of naturalism on the other. I can also envision a venn diagram in which one circle represents naturalism and the other represents narrativism. It depends on how you are using the term, I guess. Do you use it to mean that the game is primarily driven by plot? Because if it is defined in a broader way so as to include not merely plot but the story world, then it would almost sound to me like you would have a venn with gamism on one side, narrativism on the other, and the shared area where the circles overlap would be naturalism--where the gaming features and the premises of story-telling interface.
When it comes to using these terms and concepts, it seems to me that they work when they are used to indicate emphasis, but not when attempts are made to isolate them.
EDIT: Now that I see your full post, I wonder if I might understand better if you had four bullets.
"Xism does/is concerned with Y. Aism ... B." Etc. Do you really see them as separate philosophies, or as interests that receive more or less emphasis by different styles of gamers? And I still don't think I really get how simulationism and naturalism are distinct for you, unless you mean strictly by the latter, the G.N. which simulates the pulp fantasy tropes in classical D&D. But you seem to reject the term earlier as too narrow. Hopefully this is not because my mind is too tired. So I think maybe I will also add, Too narrow for what it particular? Did you indicate where it should be used, and where it is too narrow to be used? I'll try rereading.
Further, simulationism typically concerns itself with things such as physics and chemistry within the game, which is likewise not the real concerns of naturalism.
Disagree. It seeks to simulate whatever setting the game takes place in, which is most likely NOT Earth, so chemistry and physics are irrelevant. A simulationist game has rules that reflect how the game world operates. Gygax's World of Greyhawk had heroic people who could kill multiple enemies while remaining unhurt, wizards who could throw fireballs, and wilderness hazards that would kill inexperienced people who didn't grow in power before venturing out. The D&D rules reflected that.
|
|
First, thank you to James M for returning often to provide additional comments and clarity. Again, we appreciate your insight and ability to articulate the ideas well.
Second, thanks to everyone who posted such substantive contributions to this thread... from Gygaxian Naturalism's expression in your games, to the literary roots of d&d, to GNS theory. As this discussion evolves, the vocabulary and concepts are bringing more and more clarity (in some cases, provoking new questions) thanks to everyone's contributions.
Third, for those wanting more GNS theory, check out Veector's thread.
And finally, in the spirit of being inclusive, for those who may be rusty or unfamiliar with the terms....
The GNS Theory, as originally developed by Ron Edwards, is a relatively amorphous body of work attempting to create a theory of how role-playing games work. Primarily, GNS Theory holds that participants in role-playing games reinforce each other's behaviour towards ends which can be divided into three categories:
Gamist behaviours reinforce competition and challenge. Gamist refers to decisions based on what will most effectively solve the problem posed. These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time explaining why the characters are facing them.
Narrativist behaviours reinforce story and theme. Narrativist refers to decisions based on what would best further a dramatic story or address a central theme. Some critics suggest that the term "themist" might be more descriptive, given that addressing a thematic issue is a necessary condition for labeling a creative agenda as "narrativist."
Simulationist behaviours reinforce experience and celebration of source material. Simulationist refers to decisions based on what would be most realistic or plausible within the game's setting, or to a game where the rules try to simulate the way that things work in that world, or at least the way that they could be thought of working, striving for versimilitude.
Strictly, GNS theory is concerned with players' social interactions, but it has been extrapolated to direct game design, both in and out of the world of RPGs. A game can be classified according to how strongly it encourages or facilitates players reinforcing behaviours matching each category. Game designers find it useful because it can be used to explain why players play certain games.
Some questions I am wondering about: Are there some more practical examples of Gygaxian Naturalism in a 3.5 game? Has anyone cracked the puzzle of being able to deliver a 3.5 game with the same Gygaxian feel - and, at what expense? What had to change to achieve this delivery?
|
|
Some questions I am wondering about: Are there some more practical examples of Gygaxian Naturalism in a 3.5 game? Has anyone cracked the puzzle of being able to deliver a 3.5 game with the same Gygaxian feel - and, at what expense? What had to change to achieve this delivery?
Wasn't Castles & Crusades an attempt to achieve a Gygaxian feel with a simplified ruleset based upon the 3.5 SRD?
|
|
I wasn't referring to any particular system.
Thank you for the clarification...
I heartily agreed with the rest of your post (and tend to DM the same way). It had just been that one point (in your post) that stuck out for me...
Again, thank you for taking the time to clarify... :-D
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
But simulationism typically puts an emphasis on using rule-sets to resolve the outcomes of actions and events. So far, it really appears that naturalism doesn't do this.
Here I begin to wonder what you mean by 'Gygaxian Naturalism'. Because I would argue that Gygaxian Naturalism does in fact more or less do this. When I think of Gygaxian Naturalism I think of guidelines in the rules that say something like "if there are more then 40 gnolls in a tribe then they will be led by a war chief of 4th level, have a 3rd level shaman with two 1st level apprentices and there is a 40% chance of the tribe having 2-16 Hyena's. 30% of the Gnolls will be female (treat as hobgoblins) and 10% will be non-combatant children. The tribe will have treasure type F while all the males have treasure type C.
While this does not encompass all of Gygaxian Naturalism I tend to think of it as being a kind of quintessential example.
Further, simulationism typically concerns itself with things such as physics and chemistry within the game, which is likewise not the real concerns of naturalism. Certainly it shares elements with simulationism: the desire for a believable, internally consistent world which mimics our understanding of the reality we live in.
I'd not so easily throw out these elements when considering the priorities Gygax placed on the game. Certainly 1E did not attempt to simulate this sort of thing perfectly but it did generally try and move closer to these elements whenever possible. Its, in some sense, 2nd editions rejection of this aspect of the game in favour of more narrativist elements that left some players feeling very cool toward 2nd edition. In essence I think you hit the nail on the head when you say that simulationism attempts to create believable, internally consistent worlds which mimic reality. In so far as 1E is a simulationist game I feel its this aspect of simulationism that it really emphasized - and its what we seem to be calling naturalism on this thread.
I specifically used weather as an example above because a 1E copy of the World of Greyhawk includes weather tables. IIRC it was possible to roll some dice and find out the weather in Furyondy if that was something you needed in your game.
But simulationism also contains gamist elements in its greater focus on mechanics. Gamist and simulationist philosophy have totally different goals and methods of implementation; so, too, naturalism and simulationism.
I would argue that all of Simulationism, Gamism and Narrativism have elements that overlap with each other and elements that are in jusxtoposition with each other. So you point out an element where Simulationism and Gamism have an overlap - they both tend to focus on the rules to get from A to B. They jusxtapose in the fact that gamism makes no bones about sacrificing realism if it is perceived as improving game play.
And let's not forget narrativism, which typically shuns the use of hard-set rules in favor of whatever makes for a compelling story. The lack of focus on mechanics gives narrativism as much of a claim on naturalism as simulationism does, but I don't think naturalism can truly be considered a subset of either (and gamism is right out).I will concede that simulationism does easily lend itself to the macro-level consideration of economics, which blurs the lines somewhat, and I could possibly accept naturalism being a style which falls between and merges the philosophies of simulationism and narrativism.
But in truth, I think it has its own thesis on "what is most important in a game," and thus deserves a place with the other three facets. Thoughts?
I see something of an overlap between Simulationism and Narrativism in the concept of immersion - Narrativism does like to get the player characters to become part and parcel of the world in which they operate. That said I feel that Narrativism does not have as strong a hold over Naturalism as simulationism does.
When I think of Gygaxian Naturalism I think about those weather tables in 1E World of Greyhawk. In Gygaxian Naturalism even the DM does not know what the weather is like today until he rolls the dice and cross indexes the weather table with the location and the calendar month. This is very immersive and gives a strong 'real world' feeling but its not Narrativist. In Narrativism the weather is something the DM uses to convey mood and plot. The dice almost never tell the DM what the weather is because random weather has nearly as much chance of detracting from the drama as it does in adding to it. Beyond this Narrativism is very strongly player focused. In Narrativism if its not all about the players then it really does not matter - thats an element that I think is very much in opposition to Gygaxian Naturalism with its emphasis on simulating the world. Gygax generally populated the world with adventures and then let the players tell the story by having them decide what they wanted to do. Narrativism is more like a modern Paizo AP were there is a single all encompassing plot line and the players are along for the ride while the DM tells them a story.
Another example of Gygaxian Naturalism might be - What treasure does the Dragon have? In Gygaxian Naturalism the DM does not know until he rolls the dice. He knows that the Dragon has treasure types E, F, P and X but exactly whats in the hoard is unclear until he rolls on those tables, and if they indicate a magic item he won't know what magic item has actually been found until he rolls on the magic item sub tables which will determine exactly which items are here. This is what I think of as 'rules that don't reference the players'. Sure they are the ones that will eventually find the hoard but the rules themselves are only utilized by the DM in order to create the Dragons Hoard.
Maybe the classic example of this theme is 'What does the Giant have in his sack?' Even the DM does not know until he rolls them bones.
All of these are elements I see as being essentially simulationist. Sure there are no real world Dragons but in Gygax's world dice and tables were used to create an authentic feeling Dragons Hoard. If the DM rolled crappy the players might b%#&& and moan but they understood that the DM had rolled the dice fairly and it just so happened that this dragon had magic items that simply were not usable by this adventuring party - which is basically authenticity trumps story.
Some questions I am wondering about: Are there some more practical examples of Gygaxian Naturalism in a 3.5 game? Has anyone cracked the puzzle of being able to deliver a 3.5 game with the same Gygaxian feel - and, at what expense? What had to change to achieve this delivery?Wasn't Castles & Crusades an attempt to achieve a Gygaxian feel with a simplified ruleset based upon the 3.5 SRD?
I think there is a significant danger in looking at what Gygax did later in life and assuming that this was what was guiding his design principles in 1E. Gygax changed a lot of his views on game design with the creation of rules light games like Legendary Adventures.
In modern terms I think Hackmaster is probably a closer cousin to 1E then Castles and Crusades.
|
|
In modern terms I think Hackmaster is probably a closer cousin to 1E then Castles and Crusades.
Well, one cannot argue that HackMaster uses a "revision" of the AD&D rules (1e and 2e), it however (IMO), falls short of the "Gygaxian Naturalism" theme/feel because of that whole "parody" thing...
Of more import than the parody however, is that the original setting ("Garweeze Wurld") played second fiddle to the "Kick in the door!" style of combat used in the game (not sure if this is still true now that "Kingdoms of Kalamar" has become the official setting, but still)...
Castles & Crusades on the other hand, while using the OGL, to me, has put that same "feel" back into the game that was in those original three little brown booklets that came out back in 1974...
But that's just how I see it...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
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?
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.
3) I think system matters here, so much as system matters in any discussion of GM style. Perhaps the restriction to adhere to the "rules as written", no matter what system you're using, runs afoul of Naturalism. Whenever the GM is constrained by a rule rather than making whatever decision best serves her purposes to make the game exciting and intriguing, it damages the Naturalist aspect of the relationship between GM and players.
Perhaps.
(If I were trying to use a 3.5 example, I would point to a player who builds such massive bonuses into her character's knowledge skills, diplomacy, and sense motive that the PC walks into a dungeon, knows details about all the monsters she encounters, and can turn all the creatures from violent to at worst neutrally inclined towards her.)
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?
The way I'm looking at Naturalism, it's a specific answer to the question of what "secrets" are out there, and how they're revealed to the players through their characters' actions.
(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.))
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...)