On a different train of thought, the whole issue on "death on Gygaxian naturalism" seems be having some distinct effect in my 4e sessions, not just in my 4e world design. In a pinch, we could say that the 4e books just leave the DM totally free hands to construct world ecologies. Interestingly, the 4e DMG is more interested in giving guidelines for constructing stories, and story takes priority over setting. Actually I am quite fine with that, as I have always preferred the heroic playing style where PCs are the center of things (maybe not on the political power arena, but at least in the action and adventure line).
That said, what I did like of the Gygaxian approach to rule-setting merging is that it added flexibility. My 4e players get quite dismayed, to be concrete, at the lack of info in the PHB on how Powers (especially spells) can be used outside combat. Couple examples:
1) Can a Wizard put a couple gate guards to Sleep with the 1st level daily power of the same name so that the party may sneak into a tower without fighting and raising an alarm? Will those guards get to save every 6 seconds (as it is the case in a combat situation)?
2) Can the same Wizard use area spells with the Cold keyword in order to freeze the surface of a small river and safely cross? What level of cold powers would let him do that? Can the same cold spell be used to put down a fire about to destroy the town hospice?
3) Can a Warlock use Eyebite to confuse and lose an assassin shadowing him through a city?
4) If the party retreats from a humanoid lair, how many wounded or disabled orc warriors can be brought to full strength by their couple shamans?
Granted that previous incarnations of the game did not cover all situations, but they gave out some detail (like blaze intensity of fireballs compared to other fire sources) which hinted at players about how "powers" had impact on the world at large. In 4e, the way the PHB (and the MM entries) is geared, one gets the feeling of powers being useful only in tactical encounter situations, with a selection of utility ones and rituals defined for non-combat functions. That division
in my opinion deters from the "natural" feeling of the milieu.
Evidently, nothing has happened which cannot be fixed by DM adjudication, as it was usual in early D&D incarnations (where there were no skill checks even). What I feel, nevertheless, is that the style of presentation in 4e, and the way some rulings get underscored for certain situations (read: Skill Challenges have defined a creative and detailed way of solving non-combat situations, whereas powers have been almost totally confined to combat setting rulings) does not communicate the same feeling of wonder and "we can try everything" of other D&D versions, even if it is, perhaps, more open-ended than 3.5
@JRM - One word to everything you said: Yes.
@ Skye - Ecology is broken in a zoo, but there is an explanation for that, so in the same way, you could have a crazed super archmage who filled a dungeon with an incredible collection of monsters that was completely naturalistic.
What “deconstruction” are you talking about? Module WG7?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
*That reminds me, I've long wanted to run a dungeon at the bottom of which the party discover the workshops of the artificer demons responsible for all the complex's traps. Very few dungeons include a...
That would be the infamous WG7 - Castle Greyhawk. Although something like that is implied in S2 - White Plume Mountain.
@JRM - One word to everything you said: Yes.
@ Skye - Ecology is broken in a zoo, but there is an explanation for that, so in the same way, you could have a crazed super archmage who filled a dungeon with an incredible collection of monsters that was completely naturalistic.
What “deconstruction” are you talking about? Module WG7?
Then a zoo is not a real ecology, the bear cage does not have any bearing on the aquarium. You can say you have several "mini-ecosystems", but not a natural one.
I was thinking of the figure of Zagyg in general. You can read him as the Dungeon Master within Greyhawk (as much as Gygax was the DM of the GH campaign). That implies a breach between "textual" (read "gaming") levels: PCs in the campaign could meet their DM (who is across the players at the gaming table) within the game world.
And any player of GH stuff involving Zagyg may run into the D&D creator or his legacy, but, oh, the game is the legacy, so...
That's what I meant.
BTW, are there any "Gygaxian-Zagygan footprints" in 4e? Something like the Talisman of Zagyg and so on? I haven't noticed any in the PHB magic item list or in the Adventurer's Vault. I think including a small item or something like that would have a nice tribute, having the big guy inside the game, and not only in the credits-acknowledgements small print.
Then a zoo is not a real ecology, the bear cage does not have any bearing on the aquarium. You can say you have several "mini-ecosystems", but not a natural one.I was thinking of the figure of Zagyg in general. You can read him as the Dungeon Master within Greyhawk (as much as Gygax was the DM of the GH campaign). That implies a breach between "textual" (read "gaming") levels: PCs in the campaign could meet their DM (who is across the players at the gaming table) within the game world.
And any player of GH stuff involving Zagyg may run into the D&D creator or his legacy, but, oh, the game is the legacy, so...That's what I meant.
As I indicated, the zoo is not a natural ecology, but it exists, and we are untroubled. Why? Because we know the explanation for zoos. In fact, the bear cage could have a bearing on the aquarium and vice versa: it depends on the aims of the designer.
I believe this point has already been made in other places in this thread, but it worth repeating. For those interested in Gygaxian naturalism, there may be times that Gygax exhibited other qualities, some of which, whether through omission or commission, may be inimical to his naturalism. For those preeminently interested in naturalism--of whatever variety--in gaming, the breaching of the wall between in-world personalities and out-world personalities are at the very least a challenge to maintaining naturalism (for what purpose?), and likely a breaker for both suspension of disbelief and the attitude of world-building. (I don't mind meeting E.G.G. indirectly in a game; I do not want him there directly. I don't even mind tributes, such as Zagyg. I do mind breaking the mood and the integrity of the sub-creation.)
@ JRM - The most complete case I have ever seen of this was in a massive dungeon created by my college DM. He mapped out every access tunnel, every holding pen, every rail for carts that the runners of the dungeon's minions used to move creatures, spring or maintenance traps, feed creatures, etc. There was a mechanism for everything needed to make that dungeon realistic. It is still one of the most real feeling locations I have ever experienced in a game. And after many bloody nights of battling for our lives, we gained access to one of the maintenance routes, causing havoc for the cabal that ran the place.
Your last comment reminded me that the word "unnatural" does have another shade of meaning or usage that could be quite confusing in the context of our thread. There are unnatural creatures of the horrific variety that are frightening because we cannot or do not comprehend their ecology, or because they are outside of all ecology. We have conventions, however, that allow us to accept them regardless of their unnaturality, but it makes the realism of the setting even more important. A spawn of Great Cthulhu is not scary in Billy and Mandy. Rising up from the creek behind my house, it is terrifying.
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.
I get the strong impression that you actually understand GNS theory at a level that I, and, I suspect, most of the other posters on this forum simply don't. Certainly for myself, and I think most of us, GNS terminology is being used at a very basic level. Simulationism, Narrativism and Gamism are essentially short hand for certain aspects of the game and how we play it. As inaccurate this use of the terminology might be I've generally found the terminology to be of significant use in trying to convey varous points. As I've mentioned before I think there is a broad consensus on what the terms mean, here, and for D&D.
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.
I don't believe that anyone here would define this example as simulationism as the term is used here. For most of us Simulationism is not really a bad word, nor are gamism or narrativism. Though many feel that the D&D is best when it leans more toward one or two of these aspects when compared to a third. Which aspect(s) one feels the game should lean toward is very much a matter of personal taste though its at the heart of many of the conflicts that crop up on the board.
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.
I suppose I see it as informing the debate by allowing us to try and figure out what it is and were it stands in terms of the other aspects of the game that we understand.
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?
I suppose I simply see the terminology as a good place to start in coming to some agreement on what it is.
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.
Here I am in the dark again. This would have been a 'naturalistic disappointment'? I don't understand what your saying. I'm not really following you on how or why this would have been a disappointment in general and especially why its a 'naturalistic' disappointment.
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.
Again I feel like I'm loosing your train of thought. I'm sort of unclear how realism, character power and naturalism can be defined as a problem to that needs to be solved. I feel that once we are talking about D&D, in any major iteration, we really are talking about a game that involves levels. I'm unclear about what aspects of that needs to be debated in the context of naturalism.
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.
Uhh, could I get some help with this sentence. I don't understand.
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.
Wow. This is a tough sentence too.
Let me take a stab at this. By 'secondary creation' you mean the game world? right?
Is 'providence/destiny' another way of saying random chance?
When you say 'this particular matter' do you mean this one instance in play (this scene) or as a general rule in all or most scenes?
Jeremy, thanks for you response. I hope that it is clear that I am trying to persuade/dissuade you (and others) and not that I am attempting to bully (I do not find it to be very common on these boards, but it does happen, and it's not pretty.) I do not consider myself an authority on GNS, and my reflections and objections arose with trying to understand it further and apply it in our particular discussion. Maybe my assumptions or my writing style were not always clear, so I want to clear the air, just in case, and try a different tack based on your desire to use the terms. (Not by way of retraction, however. I am happy to engage on any of my previous arguments for people who want to do so on those grounds.)
If I take what I think is your way of putting the distinctions, it would yield something like Gamist - the rules, mechanics, and other formal features of the game; Narrativist - the plot/storyline (but what other story elements?) of the game; Simulationist - the setting/world. Hopefully, I am hitting it close here, or what follows will be way off the mark for you.
If this is right, then naturalism, for you, would fit most clearly as fitting in the latter category. I guess my response to this is that this strikes me as an odd way of dividing up the pie. The distinctions in themselves are okay, but how do they help in the concrete, given that it seems like there is some general agreement that naturalism is very desirable, and for some of us highly desirable or even absolutely necessary. I want the game to have that real feeling, that we are all sharing something that seems very real, more so than a book we might read and then discuss or a movie we might see together. But I want that not so we can just all sit on a bench together and breathe "the air of the shire." I want it because we are going to undertake great risks, perform heroic deeds, vanquish evil, save the innocent, and so on (oh...ok, you can reward us for all that too). So while the fleshing out and sharing of the world would be pointless without a good story, but the story will not be compelling unless the world seems real. So while I can distinguish N & S, it seems that they are parts of the same goal, the same activity, irreducibly. Take one away, and the other can't exist. Where does that leave the gamist characteristics?
Well, again based on my own experiences and friends, these gamist elements are how we achieve the shared story/world. They give surprises, unknowns, randomness--building tension and suspense. They allow us to quantify our descriptions, and give us the ability to attempt (freedom to succeed or fail). While we sometimes have encountered trouble with rules telling our stories in our worlds, and then resort to interpretations, house-rules, etc., they seem to provide a way of doing all of this, with some adjudication that applies to everyone equally...or at least, applying to the players equally and the GM being subject to them with some special provisos. So G would be means for achieving NS. (Again, I think in separation for NS, at least as understood above, is impossible except as a mental abstraction.)
If I am in the ballpark for you, then is it now saying too little to offer much help on the two fronts of naturalism/realism and Gygaxian Naturalism? On my earlier read, it was saying a lot, but on the wrong subject. To broaden its meaning, does it still have enough content to contribute? Or is it more in line with my earlier reaction: an odd way to divide the pie? Perhaps it is better then to take one of the other tacks suggested (at least for Gygaxian naturalism) and approach the subject in terms of canon and methodology, with specific examples of each that achieve G. naturalism?
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.
The catch is that, at the game table, the players are not going to meet dozens of Gnoll tribes. They are going to meet one Gnoll tribe, probably between 2nd and 4th level. After that maybe they will meet another Gnoll Tribe in the next campaign but there is a very good chance that the next campaign won't have a Gnoll tribe.
Hence, in reality, you really only have this one chance to display your games adherence to canon. The question the DM needs to decide is if its more important to enhance authenticity in this situation by making the Gnolls adhere to canon and have Hyena's or if story trumps authenticity (in this case) and Wolves are a better choice because the players can interact in interesting ways with wolves but not Hyena's.
Now if you choose, in this one instance alone in the entire campaign, to deviate from canon and every other instance where you have some kind of a choice you adhere to canon then your still obvously going to have a pretty darn authentic feeling game. You can, in fact deviate a fair bit more then once.
However, each time you deviate in order to cater to your players your doing a little bit of damage to the 'authenticity' of your game world. At some point your going to cross a line and your campaign won't feel really authentic. It might still be a great campaign full of high drama. For many, many, DMs out there authenticity always takes a back seat to story and player involvement. But if authenticity is the goal then the less you deviate the better. Particularly because exceptions stand out much more starkly then adherence and because there are only so many chances one gets in a session to create a sense of authenticity. In reality that Gnoll tribe with Hyena's does not actually feel authentic until three campaigns later when the players encounter Gnolls with Hyena's again and make the connection that Gnolls and Hyena's tend to be found together.
Heh, heh. Well, J.M., I just saw either a bunch of material in your response that I missed before, or you edited since. So since you took the trouble to try and understand me, I will try and be clear and brief in removing some difficulties.
As far as personal taste, I am taking it that most people who go to the trouble of posting on a thread with this title care about something called naturalism in general, and a gygaxian one as well. I think I have really put my cards on the table here. I am not going to try to argue with somebody that they should care about naturalism if they don't--to me it would just be utterly bizarre, and I would have to accept it like a golfer who doesn't care much for grass.
You ask what is a naturalistic disappointment? A disappointment that makes sense. In the real world, my mom died of cancer. Disappointing to say the least, but it made a kind of (terrible) sense. So, in the game world, drow goodies disintegrating in the sun could be made to make sense, instead of just feeling like a gyp. One would still be disappointed, but one would feel like one had been given a reason for why disappointment occurs, rather than just, sorry, no nifty magic items for you.
Character power is often experienced as a problem, at least by DMs. It could be treated as elements in the plot, from a perspective within the story world, rather than as a struggle between DMs and players. Trying to look at it by these internal terms, on everyone's part, has the potential, I suggest, of changing the dynamic. What if characters enjoyed the game more if they had less power, in a specific instance? What if the DM saw that giving a great power was actually true to the story/world, and hence "the right thing to do"?
Secondary creation is the game world, yes. Providence is not chance, it is chance with something more added. For example, Why did the ring come to Frodo? Why do certain good or bad things happen in our game, not from a percentile point of view (even if from a mechanical point of view, that was the cause), but from a story plot/story world point of view.
By "this particular matter" I am using the example of "what's in the giant's bag," but it applies to anything the DM knows or must decide. (And here I was trying to break my DM habit and replace it with a GM habit.) In any given instance, I propose that the DM is making the actual decision: even leaving it up to certain die rolls or certain tables instead of "deciding" is a decision. Each decision, and how it is made (with regard to method of making it, or to its outcome) I advocate being made with reference to "naturalism" or "the inner consistency of a secondary reality". Hope this helps.
If I take what I think is your way of putting the distinctions, it would yield something like Gamist - the rules, mechanics, and other formal features of the game; Narrativist - the plot/storyline (but what other story elements?) of the game; Simulationist - the setting/world. Hopefully, I am hitting it close here, or what follows will be way off the mark for you.
This is not really how I'd use the terms. This is more like a description of the varous elements of all games. The term, as far as I have seen it used on these boards are often used to describe either an element of a story or a mechanic in the rules.
So, riffing off of Chris Motika's example I'll try and define the terms again via example.
The players kill some Giants and check out whats in their sacks.
A Gamist DM sticks three scrolls of Mass Heal in the sacks. If he does not start loading his players up on magic like nuts they are going to get their butts kicked in this adventure. The scrolls are there because thats whats best for the game. - its all about making a fun game.
A Simulationist DM knows that the Giants have been out hunting. It says so in the adventure he wrote - wandering monster encounters with Giants are encountering Giants that were out hunting for food. Obvously then the bags contain rocks (for throwing at prey) and meat (successful kills). The meat and rocks are there because thats realistic. - its all about making a realistic game.
A Narrativist DM has read the backgrounds of his players characters. So he knows that Cinthia's character is searching for her long lost brother. So low and behold - the bag contains a message regarding Cinthia's characters long lost brother. What a stroke of luck! It would seem these Giants acted as body guards for a caravan that included him and he was delivered to the City of Murturak only five days ago. Everyone hop on your horses, if we force march we can be in Murturak in 48 hours and we can try and pick up his trail. The note is there because it adds to a story the players want to explore in this campaign. - its all about making a player centred game.
Well, maybe we're making progress...
A DM worth her salt will find a realistic way for the characters to get what they need, without violating what hunting giants have in their sacks, and doing justice to who the characters are in the world. It may take three (plus!) different events to pull this off instead of one. Am I too sleepy now? I don't see what these distinctions offer in the way of discussing naturalism. What's best for the game is finding the mechanics to tell a riveting story about heroic characters in a compelling world. I see how ecologies do this. I don't see how GNS does this, unless what you are saying is it should be used as a checklist saying, did you (the DM) use G to provide N & S? Is the game lacking in any of these aspects? If that is the case, then I can see it being of some practical use. (Still seems a bit thin as a theory.)
Heh, heh. Well, J.M., I just saw either a bunch of material in your response that I missed before, or you edited since. So since you took the trouble to try and understand me, I will try and be clear and brief in removing some difficulties.
Sometimes when you quote some one the post gets cut off after a while. In this case I hit submit, then went back and copied the rest of the post and edited it in.
As far as personal taste, I am taking it that most people who go to the trouble of posting on a thread with this title care about something called naturalism in general, and a gygaxian one as well. I think I have really put my cards on the table here. I am not going to try to argue with somebody that they should care about naturalism if they don't--to me it would just be utterly bizarre, and I would have to accept it like a golfer who doesn't care much for grass.
I'd think that it would be important for many to decide if, and by how much, they care about naturalism. Depending on how its defined we might get more or less takers. If we simply define it as 'there should be some kind of explanation for why things work in the world, most of the time', we'd get nearly 100% agreement. If we instead argue that one ought to define it as Gygax seemed to expect us do in 1E AD&D then the adherence rate falls off dramatically. Not everyone wants to play in a manner thats consistent with the kind of Naturalism that was part and parcel of the 1E game.
So, in the game world, drow goodies disintegrating in the sun could be made to make sense, instead of just feeling like a gyp. One would still be disappointed, but one would feel like one had been given a reason for why disappointment occurs, rather than just, sorry, no nifty magic items for you.
Most of the time, when we are considering the Drow in this light we recognize that Gygax did provide an explanation. We just happen to know that the whole thing was fundamentally gamist. The reason Drow magic items disintegrate is so that the players can't get their hands on all that sweet luchre. The in game explanation is that its special magic that disintegrates when touched by sunlight. Judging whether or not this sort of thing is good for your game is a stance each DM must make for him/herself. Is it good for your game if bad guys get access to magic that has built in features to keep them out of the players hands? There is no right or wrong answer here its group dependent.
Character power is often experienced as a problem, at least by DMs. It could be treated as elements in the plot, from a perspective within the story world, rather than as a struggle between DMs and players. Trying to look at it by these internal terms, on everyone's part, has the potential, I suggest, of changing the dynamic. What if characters enjoyed the game more if they had less power, in a specific instance? What if the DM saw that giving a great power was actually true to the story/world, and hence "the right thing to do"?
I'm not really sure how this interacts with naturalism.
I agree whole heartedly that character power can drive DMs crazy though there are all sorts of sub themes in there. Is the problem one character is too powerful? All the players are so powerful the campaign has become a cake walk? All the players are so powerful that the DM has countered with obscenely powerful monsters and every combat is turning into a race to see which side dies flunks the most save or die effects first?
These are all interesting and important questions but not ones I think of as being answerable in terms of naturalism. I suppose that the DM could come up with an really good explanation in game why the players are so mighty that the campaign is a cakewalk - but who would? Being able to explain away such a problem does not actually eliminate the problem - the game is still suffering.
Secondary creation is the game world, yes. Providence is not chance, it is chance with something more added. For example, Why did the ring come to Frodo? Why do certain good or bad things happen in our game, not from a percentile point of view (even if from a mechanical point of view, that was the cause), but from a story plot/story world point of view.
I have to wonder if this question can be answered. I mean there is the obvious answer - the DM did it. He wrote the plot line that would stick the ring in Frodo's hands, he provides the explanation for why the orc just hit you with its sword.
But if you want to take it a step beyond that then we get to larger questions of 'does it make sense for the DM to concoct an explanation that would lead to Frodo getting the ring?'. Thats question with no right or wrong answer in my opinion. Each DM and group of players has to answer that for themselves.
By "this particular matter" I am using the example of "what's in the giant's bag," but it applies to anything the DM knows or must decide. (And here I was trying to break my DM habit and replace it with a GM habit.) In any given instance, I propose that the DM is making the actual decision: even leaving it up to certain die rolls or certain tables instead of "deciding" is a decision. Each decision, and how it is made (with regard to method of making it, or to its outcome) I advocate being made with reference to "naturalism" or "the inner consistency of a secondary reality". Hope this helps.
OK - but if I understand you correctly your saying, basically then...
I propose that the DM is making the actual decision: even leaving it up to certain die rolls or certain tables instead of "deciding" is a decision. Each decision, and how it is made (with regard to method of making it, or to its outcome) I advocate being made with reference to "naturalism" or "the inner consistency of a secondary reality".
Means DMs ought to try and make their game world seem real.
A point that many DMs would agree with while some would eschew in favour of other objectives - usually either because there is an alternative thats going to provide more 'fun' or because there is an alternative thats going to provide more drama.
|
Most of the time, when we are considering the Drow in this light we recognize that Gygax did provide an explanation. (rest of quote gone due to post being cut off.)
i don't really see this as being "gamist", per se. if you recall, most of the items in question were pretty weak compared to what the players would have at that level anyway (and hand crossbows, while nice and all, did little damage, they were mostly vehicles for the sleep poison), and 1e wasn't as focused on "magic as wealth" as 3x is, frankly. and, to take it a step further, while they crumbled in daylight, they lost effectiveness if they were away from the vault for too long, as the "sickly purple glow" was what "enchanted" the weapons in the first place.
i would actually say the example of the drow weapons were more "naturalist" in the gygaxian sense in that there presence was used to impart the feeling of how alien the drow were compared to "normal" creatures, not as a conscious mechanic for "screwing the players".
when i was playing 1e, the drow weapons helped me feel like i was actually in a world that had its laws and rules even more so than if they had worked perfectly well on the surface. it was almost as if their banishment to the underworld was complete, as they couldn't be long away from their "prison" without losing their effectiveness.
i think the "gamist" explanation comes from hindsight, and through a 3x/4e filter, rather than looking at it from the perspective of the times and the way Greyhawk evolved under gygax.
Most of the time, when we are considering the Drow in this light we recognize that Gygax did provide an explanation. (rest of quote gone due to post being cut off.)i don't really see this as being "gamist", per se. if you recall, most of the items in question were pretty weak compared to what the players would have at that level anyway (and hand crossbows, while nice and all, did little damage, they were mostly vehicles for the sleep poison), and 1e wasn't as focused on "magic as wealth" as 3x is, frankly. and, to take it a step further, while they crumbled in daylight, they lost effectiveness if they were away from the vault for too long, as the "sickly purple glow" was what "enchanted" the weapons in the first place.
i would actually say the example of the drow weapons were more "naturalist" in the gygaxian sense in that there presence was used to impart the feeling of how alien the drow were compared to "normal" creatures, not as a conscious mechanic for "screwing the players".
when i was playing 1e, the drow weapons helped me feel like i was actually in a world that had its laws and rules even more so than if they had worked perfectly well on the surface. it was almost as if their banishment to the underworld was complete, as they couldn't be long away from their "prison" without losing their effectiveness.
i think the "gamist" explanation comes from hindsight, and through a 3x/4e filter, rather than looking at it from the perspective of the times and the way Greyhawk evolved under gygax.
OK. I think your really onto something in the sense that we do view this through a 3.x/4E filter. That said I still think the idea was gamist. Players that brought that many magic items to the surface would fundamentally screw up all sorts of things, magic would suddenly be plentiful, possibly impacting later campaigns and the players would then be able to give all of this stuff to their henchmen and hirelings. There was just to much of this stuff to allow it to reach the surface.
|
|
OK. I think your really onto something in the sense that we do view this through a 3.x/4E filter.
i think this may be a "tomato/toMAHto" discussion, actually. you're looking at it from the game balance/effect on the setting angle, which is totally valid, whereas i'm looking at it from the setting/interesting explanation of the effect of banishment angle (which i also think, obviously, is valid).
you're probably right about gygax doing it to keep the surface from being flooded with magic (but then, 1e modules never lacked in magic), but he couched it in terms that would satisfy the immersion gamer (like myself) who wants a fairly logical reason for things to happen the way they do. in that sense, the mechanic is both gamist (keeps the player power in check), simulationist (simulating how things work in the "real" world of greyhawk), and narrativist (deepens the story of the banishment of the dark elves and pushes that aspect of the story).
perhaps that is the beauty of "gygaxian" naturalism: he uses all aspects of the GNS (years before the concept formally existed) to create a world and adventures that appealed to a wide range of different player's tastes.
(btw, you were quoted on maleszewski's blog: scroll down a bit. pretty cool, huh? :) )
|
|
Um, 1E had gp = XP rule.
You couldn't have the drow weapon being sold as this would screw up the values and also, the items WERE stronger than normal (I'm almost positive Gygax mentioned this on enworld - the restriction was to prvent PCs from profiting from them...)
yes, 1e had an xp=gp rule. and the drow had TONS of gp value items that wouldn't disintegrate.
my question here is: how were the drow cloaks, boots and +1 weapons more powerful than everyone else's?
yeah, even 2nd level male drow fighters had +1 swords, cloaks and boots of elvenkind and +1 hand crossbows, but, by the time most parties were fighting the drow directly, they were at least 10th level, and had much better equipment.
and i did concede the point that the mechanic may have been in place to put a check on character wealth, but i just said that the fluff surrounding the mechanic made it make sense, and not just exist as a way to "screw" the players...
(btw, you were quoted on maleszewski's blog: scroll down a bit. pretty cool, huh? :) )
Yeah - does obscene things to my already over inflated ego.
Does make me wonder if he'd have quoted me if he realized just how much of a 4E proponent I am. I'm of the personal opinion that if one wants Gygaxian Methodology you've basically had to add that back into the game since 2nd edition. It only really existed in 1st, elements survived into 2nd but the concept was just gone by 3rd.
He might have - he makes it clear that the WotC editions of the game are lacking in this area and that'd include both 3rd and 4th. I basically agree - but feel that its not by any means impossible to add the concepts back into either edition of the game.
Interestingly, despite a difference in edition preferences, me and Mr. Maleszewski agree that Gygaxian Canon is of secondary importance (for me Canon must adhere to my longstanding homebrew) while Gygaxian Methodology is the 'correct' way to play the game.
I acknowledge Chris Motika's summary of the weak points of playing the game in this manner and feel he is pretty much accurate. There are other weak points that can be added as well if one really wants to tear into Gygaxian Naturalism - but for me, well its how I learned to DM and its not that easy to change something so ingrained as DMing style after 22 years. Since my players keep on plunking down at my table I must be doing something more right then wrong.
OK. I think your really onto something in the sense that we do view this through a 3.x/4E filter.i think this may be a "tomato/toMAHto" discussion, actually. you're looking at it from the game balance/effect on the setting angle, which is totally valid, whereas i'm looking at it from the setting/interesting explanation of the effect of banishment angle (which i also think, obviously, is valid).
you're probably right about gygax doing it to keep the surface from being flooded with magic (but then, 1e modules never lacked in magic), but he couched it in terms that would satisfy the immersion gamer (like myself) who wants a fairly logical reason for things to happen the way they do. in that sense, the mechanic is both gamist (keeps the player power in check), simulationist (simulating how things work in the "real" world of greyhawk), and narrativist (deepens the story of the banishment of the dark elves and pushes that aspect of the story).
perhaps that is the beauty of "gygaxian" naturalism: he uses all aspects of the GNS (years before the concept formally existed) to create a world and adventures that appealed to a wide range of different player's tastes.
I suppose I pretty much agree though I generally just think of this as being 'good' Gamism. Gamism done very well basically. However I suppose one could easily argue that all really good gamism incorporates elements of Simulationism and Narrativism into it.
Well, maybe we're making progress...
A DM worth her salt will find a realistic way for the characters to get what they need, without violating what hunting giants have in their sacks, and doing justice to who the characters are in the world.
Well my examples are a little over the top - I'm trying to be clear on the differences so I'm pushing things to a bit of an extreme. Still I think this response is essentially a judgement statement. I get the impression that one of those three answers are seen by you as being essentially correct while the other two are wrong.
I'd contend that, depending on the DM, any of those answers could be correct - none of them are actually wrong. Simply depends on the DMs style and what the players plunk down at his table for.
I don't see what these distinctions offer in the way of discussing naturalism. What's best for the game is finding the mechanics to tell a riveting story about heroic characters in a compelling world. I see how ecologies do this. I don't see how GNS does this...
Well I'd start out by noting that naturalism generally does not reference the players, Gygaxian Naturalism especially. That does in fact mean that if one wants to follow Gygaxian Naturalism only the Simulationist response is appropreate. The other two are actually about the players and not about the Giants. So if we want to play the game utilizing Gygaxian Naturalism we have to move our game more toward Simulationism and away from Gamism and Narrativism. Thats not to say that elements of Narrativism and Gamism won't be part of the game - they will be, they have to be. D&D does not exist without all three but this is a particularly simulationist way of playing D&D.
Now I suppose one might decide that this is not particularly important in working specifically what steps one wants to take in running a game that adheres closely to Gygaxian Naturalism, though I think it does inform that process (when in doubt choose simulationism). It is, however, a fairly important point for discussing what Gygaxian Naturalism is and for arguing over its pro's and con's. If you want to decide if Gygaxian Naturalism is for you then its important to recognize that Gygaxian Naturalism is a sub set of simulationism.
If you want to decide what exactly Gygaxian Naturalism is I'd contend that the short answer is authenticity and the long answer would encompass the varous mechanics Gygax used to create authenticity. Many of these mechanics have been mentioned earlier in this thread.
Does make me wonder if he'd have quoted me if he realized just how much of a 4E proponent I am. I'm of the personal opinion that if one wants Gygaxian Methodology you've basically had to add that back into the game since 2nd edition. It only really existed in 1st, elements survived into 2nd but the concept was just gone by 3rd.
I wholeheartedly agree with this. It's the reason why my preferred version of D&D is OD&D + supplements or, in a pinch, 1e. I simply don't find the WotC editions support the Gygaxian Methodology very well and indeed contain many elements (mostly mechanical) that militate against it.
He might have - he makes it clear that the WotC editions of the game are lacking in this area and that'd include both 3rd and 4th. I basically agree - but feel that its not by any means impossible to add the concepts back into either edition of the game.
Impossible? No, it's not. However, there are lots of mechanical/design considerations in the WotC editions (and, by extension, Pathfinder) that run counter to the Gygaxian Methodology. To put it back into those editions requires a fair amount of tweaking of the rules to accommodate it.
Perhaps it's now the time to talk about Gygaxian Mechanics as well? :)
Seriously, this is a great thread, everyone. I am deeply impressed with how a little throwaway post of mine has engendered such thoughtful discussion. Keep it up.
Um, 1E had gp = XP rule.
You couldn't have the drow weapon being sold as this would screw up the values and also, the items WERE stronger than normal (I'm almost positive Gygax mentioned this on enworld - the restriction was to prvent PCs from profiting from them...)
yes, 1e had an xp=gp rule. and the drow had TONS of gp value items that wouldn't disintegrate.
my question here is: how were the drow cloaks, boots and +1 weapons more powerful than everyone else's?
yeah, even 2nd level male drow fighters had +1 swords, cloaks and boots of elvenkind and +1 hand crossbows, but, by the time most parties were fighting the drow directly, they were at least 10th level, and had much better equipment.
and i did concede the point that the mechanic may have been in place to put a check on character wealth, but i just said that the fluff surrounding the mechanic made it make sense, and not just exist as a way to "screw" the players...
But did it make consistent sense, with the way other things worked from the underdark? I agree that it could be used as an effective "immersionist" element. I guess determining this could separate out into two lines of questioning: Did Gygax achieve it? Did various DMs achieve it?
The catch is that, at the game table, the players are not going to meet dozens of Gnoll tribes. They are going to meet one Gnoll tribe, probably between 2nd and 4th level. After that maybe they will meet another Gnoll Tribe in the next campaign but there is a very good chance that the next campaign won't have a Gnoll tribe.
Except if it is that important to correctly represent a gnoll tribe, then you should probably have more than one encounter. If an area has gnolls why would there only be one group in the entire area? Is there only one tribe of elves? One tribe of humans?
Hence, in reality, you really only have this one chance to display your games adherence to canon. The question the DM needs to decide is if its more important to enhance authenticity in this situation by making the Gnolls adhere to canon and have Hyena's or if story trumps authenticity (in this case) and Wolves are a better choice because the players can interact in interesting ways with wolves but not Hyena's.
You have as many chances as you choose to make. And how is wolves better for a party to interact with than hyenas? I can't even understand where that is coming from.
Now if you choose, in this one instance alone in the entire campaign, to deviate from canon and every other instance where you have some kind of a choice you adhere to canon then your still obvously going to have a pretty darn authentic feeling game. You can, in fact deviate a fair bit more then once.
Canon = Authentic? Sorry, why is someone else's opinion of the diversity of a group better at being authentic than my own for my own world? Just because someone somewhere decided that a tribe has for example: (20-200 plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th-8th level, and 7-12 hyenas; underground lairs also have 1-3 trolls), how is that more authentic than my own evaluation for my setting?
However, each time you deviate in order to cater to your players your doing a little bit of damage to the 'authenticity' of your game world. At some point your going to cross a line and your campaign won't feel really authentic.
Or it will feel more authentic if it better fits my world. Carbon copies end up feeling very less authentic. When every gnoll has exactly the same gear and each group has exactly the same make up, the living breathing aspect of the world is weakened. Again, another person's view of how things should be set up will always fall flat when compared to the DM at the table and their view for the world. A gnoll group in the northern regions would not naturally have a hyenas as pets, wolfs would make a more natural choice. By trying to make a examples cookie-cutters the authencity will more be harmed than approaching each group as individuals (especially when looking at intelligent creatures).
Jeremy, my responses in italics below:
I'd think that it would be important for many to decide if, and by how much, they care about naturalism. Depending on how its defined we might get more or less takers. If we simply define it as 'there should be some kind of explanation for why things work in the world, most of the time', we'd get nearly 100% agreement. If we instead argue that one ought to define it as Gygax seemed to expect us do in 1E AD&D then the adherence rate falls off dramatically. Not everyone wants to play in a manner thats consistent with the kind of Naturalism that was part and parcel of the 1E game.
Agreed.
Most of the time, when we are considering the Drow in this light we recognize that Gygax did provide an explanation. We just happen to know that the whole thing was fundamentally gamist. The reason Drow magic items disintegrate is so that the players can't get their hands on all that sweet luchre. The in game explanation is that its special magic that disintegrates when touched by sunlight. Judging whether or not this sort of thing is good for your game is a stance each DM must make for him/herself. Is it good for your game if bad guys get access to magic that has built in features to keep them out of the players hands? There is no right or wrong answer here its group dependent.
By my understanding of “explanation,” given both the subject of the thread and my own strong take on it, but using your terminology, a gamist explanation is no explanation at all. Explanations are for players (and GMs), to maintain story-world. If power balance must be maintained, (whether defined in terms of wealth, magic, etc.) then that needs to be done in such a way that the sense of naturalism is at least protected, but preferably so that it is enhanced.
These are all interesting and important questions but not ones I think of as being answerable in terms of naturalism.
Sure they are. Merely as a starting point: powerful heroes have made powerful enemies, attract lots of requests, etc. And of course there will be things that will be a cakewalk for the PCs—its just that this is not longer the adventure, and doesn't even particularly need to take up game time.
I have to wonder if this question can be answered. I mean there is the obvious answer - the DM did it. He wrote the plot line that would stick the ring in Frodo's hands, he provides the explanation for why the orc just hit you with its sword. But if you want to take it a step beyond that then we get to larger questions of 'does it make sense for the DM to concoct an explanation that would lead to Frodo getting the ring?'. Thats question with no right or wrong answer in my opinion. Each DM and group of players has to answer that for themselves.
In stories, things do have right or wrong answers. There may be varieties (a range, a plurality) of right and wrong answers, but story builds, elicits, its own logic. Gandalf gives Frodo (us) a reason: You were meant to have the ring. But I agree wholeheartedly that it is up to the DM and the players to find these answers. I think we have been in groups where we have known when the right answers were found: they are deeply satisfying. And wrong answers piss us off because they seem lame or phony.
Means DMs ought to try and make their game world seem real.
No, it means that naturalism ought (ideally) to be present in every game decision. I have pointed out at various junctures how this can contribute to making the game better.
A point that many DMs would agree with while some would eschew in favour of other objectives - usually either because there is an alternative thats going to provide more 'fun' or because there is an alternative thats going to provide more drama.
I confess myself at a loss to understand these “other objectives” and how they could make the game more fun, if they countermand the sense of reality. I don't see balancing the various elements or objectives as a zero sum game with limited resources.
Well my examples are a little over the top - I'm trying to be clear on the differences so I'm pushing things to a bit of an extreme. Still I think this response is essentially a judgement statement. I get the impression that one of those three answers are seen by you as being essentially correct while the other two are wrong.
The judgment I am making is not that one of the options in the “what's in the bag” example is essentially correct. They are all essentially wrong, if taken as options in how to game (well). But this is taking them abstractly. If it were a concrete situation in the game, there might be a reason why the hunting giant party has a bag with those scrolls in them....they've been hunting cwerics....a-a-a-a-a!
Well I'd start out by noting that naturalism generally does not reference the players, Gygaxian Naturalism especially. That does in fact mean that if one wants to follow Gygaxian Naturalism only the Simulationist response is appropreate. The other two are actually about the players and not about the Giants. So if we want to play the game utilizing Gygaxian Naturalism we have to move our game more toward Simulationism and away from Gamism and Narrativism. Thats not to say that elements of Narrativism and Gamism won't be part of the game - they will be, they have to be. D&D does not exist without all three but this is a particularly simulationist way of playing D&D.
You're pushing me back towards my rejection of GNS. If you want to label a way “particularly simulationist,” that's fine. It just does nothing for me, and I still don't see it contributing. Here's why: it is odd to make a decision about something in a system, in a world, based only on certain elements and not at all on others. Something may be more or less about the characters or the giants, but if they are unconnected, a story-world has not yet been fully constructed. How could you have a naturalism that does not “reference” the characters? Now, if you are talking about objectivity, that's fine. I am inside as I write this. I have not gone outside to discover if the Carolina Anoles are out sunning themselves on the brick walls. They are there (or not) whether I go out and check or not. But in a story (my story), having a chapter on the Carolina Anoles that did reference me would be an utterly bizarre bowl of Failure Crunch....and probably without the milk too. (Another route of seeing this would be to ask, who is the game/story for? The players, not the giants. But it won't even “exist” for the players if they are preferred to their characters, with injustice to the authenticity of the giants. )
*On rereading what you wrote: Did you mean player or character? I assumed character, above, because of the bag example. If you mean players and not characters, then you may find yourself saying, “I agree, but that's not what I was saying.” But then I would say, how does naturalism not “reference” players, when they are its audience--so I may not understand what you are saying.
Now I suppose one might decide that this is not particularly important in working specifically what steps one wants to take in running a game that adheres closely to Gygaxian Naturalism, though I think it does inform that process (when in doubt choose simulationism). It is, however, a fairly important point for discussing what Gygaxian Naturalism is and for arguing over its pro's and con's. If you want to decide if Gygaxian Naturalism is for you then its important to recognize that Gygaxian Naturalism is a sub set of simulationism.
Authenticity is another good term, thanks for introducing it into the discussion. “When in doubt, choose simulation”: perhaps we are closer together than I thought, if the term is congruous with what I mean by “the inner consistency of reality” or a sense of real time, real place, real objects, real events, real persons. I still feel more comfortable leaving the “-ism” off, hopefully that doesn't change things for you too much. I still don't see how GNS “informs” “choose S”.
|
I really appreciate this thread for its thoughtfullness.
I saw Lejendary Adventure mentioned earlier I believe, which is Gygax's most recent RPG.
With what I think the definition of GN is based on this thread, I believe Lejendary Adventure(LA) is a return to GN. Beast of Lejend is very similar to early D&D monster books. The Lejendary Earth campaign setting is very much like original Greyhawk.
Since LA is not a level based system I think this idea of GN fits even better with it.
I have not really compared and contrasted the early D&D adventures with the LA adventures, but LA adventures are a little more sophisticated. However I think they fit into the GN theory nicely.
The LA rules are very simple, but as written are very difficult to understand. The few of us that tried to figure them out by talking to Gary and the rest of the LA community, the rules became very easy to understand. Anyone who enjoys the GN style I believe would love LA.
For anyone that does not already own them they are currently out of print and it has been recently announced that Mongoose will be reprinting them in June 2009.
It is the game I am playing until Pathfinder RPG is completed and I will probably switch between the two once it does.
I will send some more thougtful people than myself from the LA community over here to see if they can add to the thread in a meaningful way.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That would be the infamous WG7 - Castle Greyhawk. Although something like that is implied in S2 - White Plume Mountain.
The only dungeon infrastructure I recall from WG7 was a factory for manufacturing gingerbread golems and other jokey food-monsters. Don't remember any trap-maintenance crews and I'm not masochistic enough to want to pull out my copy of Castle Greyhawk to read it again.
Bottom Level. That's where you'll find the Random Monster Generator and the crew that maintains the upper levels.
If you want to decide if Gygaxian Naturalism is for you then its important to recognize that Gygaxian Naturalism is a sub set of simulationism.
If you want to decide what exactly Gygaxian Naturalism is I'd contend that the short answer is authenticity and the long answer would encompass the varous mechanics Gygax used to create authenticity. Many of these mechanics have been mentioned earlier in this thread.
This is the clearest and most concise explanation I've seen in this thread so far. Thank you.
And for "...mechanics Gygax used to create authenticity..." I'd rephrase as "mechanics Gygax used to create a phantasm of authenticity".
JRM, I don't remember a hue-and-cry about the transition to 2nd Edition, either, but then, I wasn't plugged into Internet chat groups back then, either.
I really don't see much of the changes from 1st to 2nd Edition being changes of substance. 2nd Edition cleaned up a lot of 1st Edition, changed the way some mechanics behaved (good-bye, Weapon-vs.-Armor-Type table; hello, THAC0) made the bard more playable, and so on.
Did the types of adventures change from 1st Edition to 2nd? Yes, but I think that was coincidence. The clean-up of the game mechanics followed closely behind a shift to more narrativist attitudes at TSR. I'd point to the Forgotten Realms Box Set as the watershed event signalling the curtain on naturalist adventures, more than the Edition change.
Another change I'll point to is the RPGA. take a look at successive GEN-CON Program Books from the mid-80's to early 90's. Convention adventures shifted from mostly individual DM's running individual adventures, many with house rules; to Organized Play, where all the DM's needed to follow the rules.
I don't remember a hue-and-cry about the transition to 3rd Edition, either, but everyone else remembers one, so I'll chalk that up to being out-of-touch.
And I think that 3rd Edition really has changed the substance of game play. Not only were the introductory articles all about what kinds of super characters the new rules allowed you to play at 1st Level, but the emphasis on players requiring the DMs to follow the rules, and the rules mechanics which replaced the old DM-call decisions, have made it more difficult to present a simultationist world.
As I see things.
|
Canon = Authentic? Sorry, why is someone else's opinion of the diversity of a group better at being authentic than my own for my own world? Just because someone somewhere decided that a tribe has for example: (20-200 plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th-8th level, and 7-12 hyenas; underground lairs also have 1-3 trolls), how is that more authentic than my own evaluation for my setting?...
If every tribe of gnolls (or whatever) in ones campaign world has exactly what the PCs need the most, how is that "authentic"?
But more to the point...
I think it's just an issue of internal consistency...
If I go into almost anybody's house (at least here in the US, as I won't make any assumptions about folks in other countries), I am going to find certain things:
A computer, a television set, a DVD player, etc. And those are just examples of the "luxuries" to be found. If you dig deeper, you'll find 99.9% have "the basics": Bed, refrigerator, sofa/couch, etc...
What is my point exactly?
It's not so outlandish, unreasonable or even unrealistic to find two or more groups of gnolls (or whatever) to be, as you put it, "carbon copies" of one another...
Again, I am not judging your style of play, to each his own...
But I am in agreement with the majority of the other posters here, in that I find great satisfaction with an internally consistent (and realistic) game world (where I might not necessarily find that much needed potion of healing in the giant's sack)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Getting back to this Gamist-Narrativist-Simulationist business, I'm not sure it's a very useful line of debate for this issue.
On this we are emphatically agreed, for more than one reason, but in particular because I concur with your summary of the original theory. There seems to be a deep attachment to the terms of this theory, however. I still do not see where this attachment is explained in substantive terms.
Yeah, when I heard the term "authenticity," I was thinking of it as a descriptive term, synonymous with realism, naturalism, etc, not of it meaning "Gygaxian authenticity" or some other kind of game theory orthodoxy.
On the other hand, maybe it is worth noting that we do tend to have normative theories about what is good gaming, this can't be helped, and if others' normative theories about gaming are too different from our own, its effects are inescapable.
If every tribe of gnolls (or whatever) in ones campaign world has exactly what the PCs need the most, how is that "authentic"?
So I guess now I should defend that straw-man? But why should I, I have never made such a claim and I am not even sure if anyone here has. Again, this seems to be a False Dilemma fallacy. You don't have to have total randomness in all encounters/loot or have total crafted encounters/loot that match the PCs wants and needs. But variety is authentic. If all gnolls are named Bob and all have the same gear and the same loot, there is some lack of believability (in the setting) there.
But more to the point...
I think it's just an issue of internal consistency...
If I go into almost anybody's house (at least here in the US, as I won't make any assumptions about folks in other countries), I am going to find certain things:
A computer, a television set, a DVD player, etc. And those are just examples of the "luxuries" to be found. If you dig deeper, you'll find 99.9% have "the basics": Bed, refrigerator, sofa/couch, etc...
Ok. So will they all have the same brands? Same features? Same price/value? Does everyone have a king bed or queen? Even within those shared items, there is variation. Without variation, things seem very "artificial". "Oh look another 20'x20' room with another group of three orcs with all having 2d4 gp, scale mail, and falchions. Lame."
What is my point exactly?
It's not so outlandish, unreasonable or even unrealistic to find two or more groups of gnolls (or whatever) to be, as you put it, "carbon copies" of one another...
No, it is not wildly outlandish that people of a shared background would have similar cultures and tools and such. But that isn't the same as saying that a variation from that is also not believable. It is equally believable to say that even with a shared backgrounds different groups can develop different tools and ways of handling the particular challenges they have faced.
Again, I am not judging your style of play, to each his own...
LOL, well probably more accurately, you are not saying a judgement. ;)
But I am in agreement with the majority of the other posters here, in that I find great satisfaction with an internally consistent (and realistic) game world (where I might not necessarily find that much needed potion of healing in the giant's sack)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
But as you point out (with your comment about TVs and such), there may be those in there as well. I mean, do we assume that giants never need healing potions? That would seem very strange to me. I wouldn't find it out of place if a giant had a healing potion in their sack, just when I needed it. I would consider myself lucky, but it wouldn't feel fake in any regard. Now a kobold walking around with a giant's greatsword (because I rolled it on a random table) would seem fake to me.
|
|
So I guess now I should defend that straw-man? But why should I, I have never made such a claim and I am not even sure if anyone here has.
I was not really intending you to. It was just my impression that you prefer a more tailored treasure/encounter towards a more random one...
Ok. So will they all have the same brands? Same features? Same price/value? Does everyone have a king bed or queen? Even within those shared items, there is variation. Without variation, things seem very "artificial". "Oh look another 20'x20' room with another group of three orcs with all having 2d4 gp, scale mail, and falchions. Lame."
There is little difference between say Sharp and Sony (I mean, 42" or more of Plasma or LCD is awesome no matter how you slice it). And there is even less difference between two separate generic long swords in a fantasy setting. We may IRL ask if that sword hanging on your wall was made by the Del Tin Brothers or Windlass Steelcrafts, but in D&D, a long sword is a long sword...
No, it is not wildly outlandish that people of a shared background would have similar cultures and tools and such. But that isn't the same as saying that a variation from that is also not believable. It is equally believable to say that even with a shared backgrounds different groups can develop different tools and ways of handling the particular challenges they have faced.
In that case (in a rather simplistic example), one can just say that this tribe has new shiny/well taken care of tools and equipment, but that tribe over there has rusty old broken tools. But the tools are otherwise identical...
LOL, well probably more accurately, you are not saying a judgement. ;)
Touché...
How about, I'm not saying your style of play is wrong? :-D
But as you point out (with your comment about TVs and such), there may be those in there as well. I mean, do we assume that giants never need healing potions? That would seem very strange to me. I wouldn't find it out of place if a giant had a healing potion in their sack, just when I needed it. I would consider myself lucky, but it wouldn't feel fake in any regard. Now a kobold walking around with a giant's greatsword (because I rolled it on a random table) would seem fake to me.
That is why I said:
I might not necessarily find that much needed potion of healing in the giant's sack
Otherwise you would be correct, it would seem strange...
As for that kobold with a giant's Greatsword...
What if said Greatsword was found in the kobolds lair within the "treasure room"? And the party later learns that the ruins the kobolds are using as a lair, was in fact, made by (or at the very least, used by) giants at some point in the distant past (or there is an old ruin nearby built by giants if the kobold lair doesn't fit)??
Just about any random element can be made to fit within the context of your campaign without losing consistency...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Except if it is that important to correctly represent a gnoll tribe, then you should probably have more than one encounter. If an area has gnolls why would there only be one group in the entire area? Is there only one tribe of elves? One tribe of humans?
I'd say that this would help in this specific example but there are going to be many examples at the table and we can't get repetitive with all of them just so we can realistically highlight individual differences. Hence the adherence to some kind of canon, it allows us to be consistent in all our examples which makes the game, over time feel authentic.
You have as many chances as you choose to make. And how is wolves better for a party to interact with than hyenas? I can't even understand where that is coming from.
I'm reffering back to the original example were we had a DM who faced a choice in his campaign. The choice was...
A) Adhere to the campaigns canon which, in this case, followed D&Ds traditional canon, by having a tribe of Gnolls that had Hyena's as pets or...
B) Choose to ignore the campaigns Canon and give the Gnolls Wolves as pets because wolves would interact with the party in much more interesting ways then would Hyena's. Say for example one of the players had some kind of Wolf Totem class and could speak to and highly influence any wolves she came across.
I'll emphasize again that I don't believe there is a universal truth to either answer. Continued adherence to option A is, over time, going to create a very authentic feeling world. One in which the players are going to come to 'know' and understand. They are ultimately going to be able to make judgement calls based on the world. If they are tracking kidnappers and the Ranger finds Hyena spoor, for example, they will be able to surmise that the creatures they are on the trail have a strong probability of being Gnolls. When its done consistently and properly the players are able to talk about the campaign world in much the way people are able to talk about the country Mexico. Its a real place and, even without any prompting from the DM, they can deduce things about this place based on past experience.
Option B on the other hand provides the players with lots of powerful content in the adventures. It caters to them and they can expect excitement and drama based on their characters. The DM in building in emotional content to the story. He or she is making sure that what takes place is both important to the players and tells a story that they will find interesting and compelling.
Of course the DM can mix and match both styles but its an important consideration to realize that the more you choose option B in a campaign or in several successive campaigns the more you dilute the impact of option A.
Canon = Authentic? Sorry, why is someone else's opinion of the diversity of a group better at being authentic than my own for my own world? Just because someone somewhere decided that a tribe has for example: (20-200 plus 1 3rd-level sergeant per 20 adults, 1 or 2 lieutenants of 4th or 5th level, 1 leader of 6th-8th level, and 7-12 hyenas; underground lairs also have 1-3 trolls), how is that more authentic than my own evaluation for my setting?...
Its not. If you have in your players book that Northern Gnolls make Winter Wolves their pets then you adhere to canon by making sure that the Northern Gnolls have winter wolves as their pets. Doing so is following Gygaxian Naturalism. Your worlds canon says your Gnolls have winter Wolves so they do - and its completely irrelevant that one of your players is a cat lord with a Snow Leopard companion.
They key distinction, in this example, between Gygaxian Naturalism and a more narratavist style of play is that the Gnolls follow the style guidelines rules you laid down for your world. In a more narrativist style you'd realize that your player will be able to interact in in much more interesting ways including interesting role playing scenes if the Gnolls had Snow Leopards instead of Winter Wolves - so a couple of days before the session you rewrite the module in order to change the Winter Wolves to Snow Leopards.
Here you hopefully get a great session with a really cool role playing scene. However in deviating from your own Canon you have made it less possible for the players to recognize that Gnolls and Winter Wolves are symbiotic and were you find one you have a good chance of finding the other. You've damaged your campaigns 'naturalism' in this manner. Because your world reacts to them instead of the other way around its more difficult for them to come to view it as a distinct place that has its own internal consistency.
Again if this is the one and only exception you make then your game is still very internally consistent. If on the other hand you run a game where you routinely make adjustments to the adventures because that is what is going to make the best gaming session in light of your players current mix of characters and their characters interests then the world gets ever less consistent. It reacts so much to who they are and what they are doing that its difficult to separate the world from their characters.
In this case your players will respond by focusing less on the external campaign world and more on their characters back stories and interesting histories and connections. Your now running a player centred game and your players will respond by giving you more material to riff off of based on their characters histories, personalities and goals.
In Gygaxian Naturalism your players tend to concentrate less on their characters histories, back stories and personal goals and more on understanding and interacting with the people, places, forests and fauna of the world itself. If the world does not react to them then the only way they can get what they want is by trying to understand it.
By my understanding of “explanation,” given both the subject of the thread and my own strong take on it, but using your terminology, a gamist explanation is no explanation at all. Explanations are for players (and GMs), to maintain story-world. If power balance must be maintained, (whether defined in terms of wealth, magic, etc.) then that needs to be done in such a way that the sense of naturalism is at least protected, but preferably so that it is enhanced.That's an excellent point. A purely Gamist explanation is disconnected from the game-world, so is orthogonal to any sense of naturalism. The reason the DM does something may be gamist ("I must have them meet a priest who heals all their diseases or else everyone will die"), but a naturalist campaign would cover it up with an in-world explanation ("You stumble across a stone hut with an old man sitting cross-legged at the door, make a Gather Information Check" ... "you've heard rumours about a mysterious hermit in these hills, maybe this is him.")*.
*That's the best I could come up with on the spur of the moment - I didn't say it would be a good naturalistic explanation for the gamist encounter.
Well as you note both of these examples are essentially gamist. The second example is simply the same as the first but done by a skilled DM. I see them as both being fundamentally pretty much the same.
The DM has decided to pull a Deux ex Machina and throw his players a bone in the form of some healing. If he does not they are going to be really hard up and maybe they'll even die.
Authenticity is another good term, thanks for introducing it into the discussion. “When in doubt, choose simulation”: perhaps we are closer together than I thought, if the term is congruous with what I mean by “the inner consistency of reality” or a sense of real time, real place, real objects, real events, real persons. I still feel more comfortable leaving the “-ism” off, hopefully that doesn't change things for you too much. I still don't see how GNS “informs” “choose S”.
I'm a bit leery about introducing the term "Authenticity" into this debate. It could be construed as implying there's 'authoritarian' or 'official' way to play Gygaxian D&D, which can so easily lead to "one true wayism".
Here I simply disagree with you. I think there really is some kind of 'one true wayism' in order to achieve Gygaxian Naturalism, or maybe there are a small subset of ways to get there from here. Thats not to say that other styles of play are not just as valid, they are, but I don't think its really possible to say 'if your players are having fun' then automatically your playing Gygaxian Naturalism. I see Gygaxian Naturalism as the set of mechanics used to convey a sense of authenticity to the world as revealed in the OD&D and 1E source books and supplements. Its something that can be considered and it can be compared and contrasted with other styles of play that have evolved since. One, for example, could probably talk of a Paizoian Naturalism which is currently evolving under the direction of Erik, James and the rest of the Paizo crew.
Hmmm, interesting. I'm coming in on this thread late, but it mirrors an article I wrote back in June which also identifies the main gripe I really have with 4e as being its departure from simulationism. I think it may be a little overbearing to call that "Gygaxian naturalism" - Gygax clearly had his simulationist bits and his gamist bits - but I do agree that he had a focus on it.
In fact, here, I'll post the article...
Is D&D 4e Really Role-playing?
There's a lot of discussion about this all over the place. I hesitate to answer, but I would like to shed some light on some of the terminology in use and mention some bits where I think people may be being unclear.
According to the old Threefold Model, which is a seminal attempt at theoretically classifying approaches to roleplaying, there are three (natch): Gamism, Simulationism (or Immersion), and Dramatism (or Narrativism). Usually people don't come purely from one approach or the other but some mix of them, although you usually see consistent leanings into one of the three approaches. Would you like to know more?
"Gamist" usually means a focus on playing the game for the rules, with clear challenges and victory conditions and metagame goals. Often in games this means combat, but skill and interaction events are also gamist if pursued with a "rules first" mentality. Some people like the gamist approach. Gamism is what people are complaining about when they say "D&D 4e plays like Magic/RoboRally/a board game/a tactical minis game/etc." Gamists like to "do what will win." People don't use the old terms "munchkin" or "powergamer" much any more, but they were deprecating ways of referring to gamists, since they worried about their character's build or loot more than a realistic in-game motivation.
"Simulationist" usually means a focus on "becoming" the character inside a realistic game world. RPGers like to use the big word "versimilitude," which means "Yes I know magic isn't 'realistic,' but the game world can still behave realistically according to its own rules from its inhabitants' point of view." Simulationists like to "do what their character would do." Metagaming, or making decisions about what the character does using information not obvious to the character, is heavily frowned upon. D&D was extremely simulationist (with a side plate of gamist) up through 3e; a lot of the reaction to 4e is its movement in the other directions.
"Dramatist" usually means a focus on the storyline from an artistic sense. Dramatists like to "do what is cool" or "do what makes a story that's most like a novel." Games that wholeheartedly embrace a specific genre or show (the Buffy: The Vampire Slayer game is an example) are dramatist. D&D 4e has added some dramatist elements previously completely missing from D&D - for example, "encounter powers" and being completely healed overnight are somewhat gamist, but also somewhat dramatist because they are causing the game flow to follow a narrative structure - "the power ends when the scene ends, not at some specific time." Now, admittedly, they are more gamist than dramatist because though they follow a narrative structure they don't specifically seek to advance a narrative, but it's definitely mixed in there.
In one sense, all of these are "role-playing," in the sense that the general body of role-playing games consist of some mix of these elements. But some of the time, when people say "role-playing," they mean a strongly simulationist approach, in the sense of "no really, taking on and playing a character as a role."
Many people claim that the game rules don't have anything to do with "whether there's role-playing or not." From one point of view (all three approaches are valid RP) that's true. But from an understanding of RP as simulation, that's definitely not true. RPGs have sets of rules that can lightly or strongly encourage each of the approaches. Now, it is true that it's hard to make rules (as opposed to "advice" in a game book to roleplay) that specifically advances simulationism - but you can easily make rules that detract from it. Rules that specifically serve gamist or dramatist ends by their nature involve some metagame consideration and thus are harmful to pure simulationism. You have to take yourself "out of character" to decide what is the most clever plot twist or what super combo you can pull off to take out that beholder.
Interestingly, gamism and dramatism can meet, especially in games that have rules that are heavily prescriptive to story elements. Like the Star Trek: The Next Generation RPG, which had a "Random Technobabble Generator" chart and explained how to set up the game to mimic the dramatic structure of a normal Next Gen episode.
D&D 4e is a lot more gamist and a little more dramatist than previous editions. And it also flirts with the conjunction of gamism and dramatism with the encounter powers and healing surges and whatnot. I think this is what simulationists perceive as the "bad thing" about the 4e rules. Many of the rules are just fine from a gamist POV, like the "magic items sell for 20% list" or "marking" or "movement in squares." They are, however, harmful to the simulationists. People who aren't simulationist don't understand this, because to them role-playing is either a) playing a RPG, duh, it's in the name or b) a code word for "acting," which is sometimes dramatist and sometimes just funny voices.
This is where people say "You can roleplay just fine in 4e!" It's true in the same sense that you can roleplay in Monopoly - you can make the little doggie act up. But you can't really do simulationist Monopoly (and its rules are disjoint enough from real-world that versimilitude's impossible). Similarly, it's harder to do simulationist D&D with 4e. Not impossible of course, just made harder by the rules and the core conceits behind the rules. It specifically prescribes things like defined quests that are effectively metagame considerations and therefore counter to a simulationist's expectations about their activity in the game world.
But don't you "just need more imagination?" Perhaps. Imagination is what helps smooth over rough points in the imperfect nature of simulationism - it's "suspension of disbelief" and finding a reasonable in-game-context explanation for things that seem to break simulation. But there's a continuum of how much people can tolerate/how much work they want to put out to make the simulation happen.
My personal preferred approach is simulationist, with a dramatist streak, low on the gamism.
As a result, 4e doesn't meet my expectations as much as previous editions have. And sure, they've all been a mix - 1e used "inches" as movement, but that was generally understood to be a holdover from its more gamist origins as a tactical wargame, and the evolution of D&D has largely been towards simulationism (although some argue removing complexity worked against that, I tend to disagree - those weapon vs armor type charts may have arguably had more realism to them, but they made you spend much more time focusing on rules and so were overall a detraction). I think the change in direction from "moving from gamism to simulationism" to "moving from simulationism to gamism with a side of narrativism" is what's throwing a lot of people who liked the previous direction.
I'm not saying that 4e is "bad" and I'm not saying the non-simulationist approach to RP is bad. But everyone sees the anti-4e furor, and those that don't understand this say "Oh, everyone's always afraid of change" and other such meaningless dismissives. The deal is, that there's a lot of people who lean simulationist out there, and were used to D&D evolving down a simulationist path, and the fact that the new edition takes a direction away from that approach is surprising and unwelcome to those people.
All this is just so you understand what the real issues are when someone says "4e sucks donkey balls because it's not a roleplaying game!" What they usually mean is, "I like simulation and am used to D&D catering to that approach! This new D&D doesn't and thus it fulfills my needs less!" You may not have those same values or concerns, but that's what the fuss is about.
No, it means that naturalism ought (ideally) to be present in every game decision. I have pointed out at various junctures how this can contribute to making the game better.
Isn't this basically saying 'be a good DM'? I mean if we were to ask all the DMs on this board whether they would like to have authentic feeling encounters or inauthentic feeling encounters how many of them are going to go for the inauthentic feeling ones? Pretty much none of them right? Hence I'm not really sure how this informs the discussion. We all agree that naturalism or authenticity when considered all by itself is generally a good thing in our D&D games.
I'm generally more interested in trying to answer questions along the lines of...
'how do we achieve naturalism?' and 'is it worth the price?'
A point that many DMs would agree with while some would eschew in favour of other objectives - usually either because there is an alternative thats going to provide more 'fun' or because there is an alternative thats going to provide more drama.
I confess myself at a loss to understand these “other objectives” and how they could make the game more fun, if they countermand the sense of reality. I don't see balancing the various elements or objectives as a zero sum game with limited resources.
Here I think is were me and you are in some disagreement.
Now if we define authenticity as being anything that your players will happily swallow and continue on with the game with smiles on their faces then we would be in complete agreement. All good gaming sessions should feature this and I figure all D&D players would be in complete agreement with this line of reasoning.
However I feel that there are a verity of styles of playing D&D out there and that some of those styles consider naturalism more or less important then others. Ultimately I think when one starts talking about specifically Gygaxian Naturalism they are pretty much advocating a certain style of play. Its a style that has some really strong points in its favour but its not without its pitfalls.
I'd argue that at its core Gygaxian Naturalism is basically a way of playing the game so as to insure that one achieves an extremely high level of authenticity. Hence the adherence to canon, the use of random treasure tables that provide treasure that does not reference the player. An emphasis on internal consistency within the adventures and the creation of things like secrets that your players have only a fairly small chance of even discovering.
There are other styles of playing that don't place this kind of emphasis on authenticity and instead have other objectives that are considered more important. Consider a more narrativist style of playing the game.
There is a great example of this style of gaming over at the Secret Lives of Girl Gamers site. Your looking specifically for the episode - In Character Relationships...of a Romantic Nature. This Podcast features some very powerful examples of Narrativist or Player Centred Gaming. Personally I've played under a DM that utilized this style of gaming and it could be extremely potent. Some of the highest highs I've ever had at a game table took place in her campaign. Quite literally there would be scenes where the girls at the table would be bawling their eyes out while the boys sat there with quivering lips. Done right its an emotionally powerful way to play the game.
Its not however as authentic as Gygaxian Naturalism. Fundamentally, as listening to this podcast should make clear, what your really engaged in is a game of Days of our Lives - the Sword and Sorcery Edition. Authenticity exists only so far as necessary in order to maintain the players sense of belief in the game world. Its highly immersive, your always thinking about your character and your really getting into your characters head and playing that character to the fullest but the DM is not really trying to make the world seem authentic. She's trying to push your buttons and make you react on an emotional level to the events taking place in the game. The game centres on the characters and their interactions with each other and the NPCs in the world. Both player characters and NPCs are highly developed and are always central to the story being told. Things don't just exist because that would be realistic, they exist to further the mood and to enhance the story. The DM is the Mistress of Puppets and she's pulling all the strings. If she has already decided that the villian your about to kill is coming back from the dead then nothing you can do in the game will change that. She'll always be able to come up with an explanation on why whatever you did did not work. Of course if its done right your not meta-gaming when the villain makes his stunning reappearance because your to busy groaning or spitting up your cola in incredulity.
An example to compare and contrast this to Gygaxian Naturalism lets look at character death. 1E was notorious for having a 'Player vs. the DM' style of play. Gygaxian Naturalism is often considered a style of game with Killer DMs. This is because the DM spends a lot of time thinking up devious challenges (powerful monster synergies for example) and traps to spring on his players. It also gets this reputation because the DM follows the dice rolls. If your character pricks himself on the Orc needle Trap and you blow your save then you die. The world is a lethal place and adventuring is a dangerous career path. I play in this style and I find myself pretty routinely apologizing to one of my players even as I kill her character. You don't pull punches, you don't fudge the dice.
In a more narratavist style of gaming Character death just does not happen because you character pricked himself with a poisoned needle. You might get sick but you never die for something as lame as this. Character death is a collusion between the DM and the Player. They both basically agree that their characters death in this particular scene , usually when dealing with a major reoccurring foil (like a major villain though it can be an NPC whose not really bad but whose goals are in conflict with yours) serves to make the story more powerful. Character Death exists to increase Drama and if it won't increase drama then you simply can't die - the DM won't let you.
So in a narrativist story driven game death serves Drama. Its not particularly authentic but it is whats best for the story.
In Gygaxian Naturalism the DM guarantees his players that he will play the game strictly fairly. He calls it like it is and he adheres to the dice rolls and he does this because death is the sad fate of many an adventurer and your players are playing adventurers hence they can die.
Now I don't want to make this post much longer but I'll give a quick example comparing and contrasting Gygaxian Naturalism to a gamist approach to death. Consider the example given above where the DM decides to throw some healing to his players. Now he can place a druid in front of them and he can work that druid into the story. If he's good the players buy the fact that their really is a druid that lives here and this is just their lucky day. All of this is fine and it might well be what the DM considers best for the game it is not however Gygaxian Naturalism. Not as I understand it anyway.
In Gygaxian Naturalism the DM does not just pull some healing out of his behind and toss it to the players. The players live or die on their own resources. The players would only find a druid if the adventure, as written, actually included one. Once the DM writes this down in the adventure he sticks to it. If that means the players end up dieing well then so be it.
In this case again authenticity is key - the DM does not pull healing from his butt because thats not an authentic way to run the game and having beleaguered player stumble on a friendly druids that the DM just made up is inherently inauthentic, even if he's a good DM able to actually convince the players that the druid was there all along. This does have an effect - eventually on some level the players are going to figure out that if they are really beaten up then help is on the way. In Gygaxian Naturalism the players won't be pointing out to the DM how badly beaten up they are - instead they'll be in panic mode - because the chance of bumping into some help at any given part of the adventure is exceedingly low and they'll know it.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Jeremy--
That makes sense, but, let's look at it from a larger, earlier step: when designing the area where the PCs will be adventuring, does the DM notice that there are two very deadly encounters next to one another, that the party is going to need some rest, and since the adventure needs a druid somewhere in this area, placing one in between these two encounters would work well?
I mean, take a look at any early TSR module you please, except for "Tomb of Horrors". The author places treasures where they are to help the PCs survive.
The DM doesn't pull helpful things out of midair during the session, but he does design the adventures such that, for example, PCs in the "Temple of Elemental Evil" don't run into the really tough monsters right away.
Again, my responses below. (Jeremy in Roman; Mairkurion in italics)
Isn't this basically saying 'be a good DM'?
No, it is not basically saying that. It is making rather specific claims about what it means to be a good DM.
We all agree that naturalism or authenticity when considered all by itself is generally a good thing in our D&D games.
I don't think it is a generally good thing. I think it is an essential thing, without which other goods fail. Unfortunately, it does not seem that everyone agrees with me on this one.
I'm generally more interested in trying to answer questions along the lines of...
'how do we achieve naturalism?' and 'is it worth the price?'
Agreed on first question. On the second question, it sounds to me like you are assuming the zero sum/limited resources, i.e., that there are trade-offs at having “so much naturalism” which must mean less of other good things. I reject this, because I think all other goods in the game are fundamentally dependent on realism/naturalism. See examples above. The only way "Is it worth the price?" succeeds as a question for me, is to understand it as asking "Is it worth all the hard work?" And you know how I will answer that question.
Here I think is were me and you are in some disagreement.
Quite possibly so.
Now if we define authenticity as being anything that your players will happily swallow and continue on with the game with smiles on their faces then we would be in complete agreement.
No, I would say that naturalism is anything that contributes to the sense of secondary reality. Some players could improve in this area.
...when one starts talking about specifically Gygaxian Naturalism they are pretty much advocating a certain style of play...
You may not have identified my main interest yet. It may be found in multiple of my previous postings, although perhaps not explicitly in our specific exchanges. I have, however been assuming it throughout, and they should be pretty easy to find: My interest in Gygaxian Naturalism is only secondary. I am interested in it, but only as a particular brand, style, or set of strategies that would serve my greater interest: naturalism or the act of sub-creation that has “the inner consistency of reality” (language taken from Tolkien's essay referenced above.) So, if in all my posts, you read where I say “naturalism” or “realism” et al as being “Gygaxian Naturalism” specifically, you are getting the wrong idea about what I am saying and likely feeling some confusion. As I said before, I think I have the most to contribute myself on naturalism in general, and am willing to mostly listen and ask questions about G.N., since my gygaxian days (proper) are further back in my past than some of the more hardcore grognards present on our thread. Oh grognards, quench my thirst by trampling out the grapes of the gygaxian fields in thy wine-vats!
There are other styles of playing that don't place this kind of emphasis on authenticity and instead have other objectives that are considered more important. Consider a more narrativist style of playing the game.
Not gonna bite here on the authenticity vs. narrativist hook, because I don't feel this is a compelling distinction, given all my objections heretofore.
On the more general point of different playing styles, you might take a look at my last reply to JRM, where I talk about normative theories. On this, you and I may agree: that there are some styles of play that simply do not appeal to us, if they get too far away from what we value and enjoy. This is exactly the point where you quote JRM's response and disagree with him.
There is a great example of this style of gaming over at the Secret Lives of Girl Gamers site. Your looking specifically for the episode - In Character Relationships...of a Romantic Nature. This Podcast features some very powerful examples of Narrativist or Player Centred Gaming.
I'll give it a look sometime, thanks.
Its not however as authentic as Gygaxian Naturalism. Fundamentally, as listening to this podcast should make clear, what your really engaged in is a game of Days of our Lives - the Sword and Sorcery Edition. Authenticity exists only so far as necessary in order to maintain the players sense of belief in the game world. Its highly immersive, your always thinking about your character and your really getting into your characters head and playing that character to the fullest but the DM is not really trying to make the world seem authentic.
If this distinction holds, so much the worse for G.N., as far as I am concerned. Cf. all my many previous descriptions and explanations of naturalism/realism and the unity of plot and story-world.
So in a narrativist story driven game death serves Drama. Its not particularly authentic but it is whats best for the story.
Again, just for clarity, I am not accepting this wedge. A story is not dramatic or compelling unless it is realistic. A realistic story that is not dramatic or compelling is not worth telling.
The reason your examples are not compelling to me is because they seem to posit a DM who is not in charge vs a DM who is in charge—one who is a servant of dice and tables and one who lord of them. Since a DM chooses to use or not to use, to roll or not to roll, what is relevant and what is not, this appears to me as a false picture.
In this case again authenticity is key - the DM does not pull healing from his butt because thats not an authentic way to run the game and having beleaguered player stumble on a friendly druids that the DM just made up is inherently inauthentic, even if he's a good DM able to actually convince the players that the druid was there all along.
You seem to be equating “authenticity” with probability. But improbable things happen, and our entire game is predicated on improbable things happening. No improbable, no exciting game. So the question is not does the improbable happen, but does the DM bring it about so that the improbable seems real and does not break the spell.
As for that kobold with a giant's Greatsword...
What if said Greatsword was found in the kobolds lair within the "treasure room"? And the party later learns that the ruins the kobolds are using as a lair, was in fact, made by (or at the very least, used by) giants at some point in the distant past (or there is an old ruin nearby built by giants if the kobold lair doesn't fit)??
Just about any random element can be made to fit within the context of your campaign without losing consistency...
But if the lair or ruins wasn't originally part of the plans for the setting, including it just because of something that randomly showed up on a treasure roll lacks "naturalism", doesn't it? How is this different than changing something slightly to better fit the characters? It is ok to make minor setting changes for random rolls but not for the players?
|
|
It is ok to make minor setting changes for random rolls but not for the players?
Adding a ruin in the countryside, is a far cry from say adding a scroll of raise dead on the body of that last orc the party killed because one of the PCs just happened to die at the end of the last session...
IMO, even just adding a potion or two of healing because you know the party is about to face Vecna two rooms over, is mot the same as adding some obscure ruin in the wilderness (because they should know they are at some point going to face Vecna)...
Point is, I feel the party should manage their own resources (and the players at my table agree on this)...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
It is ok to make minor setting changes for random rolls but not for the players?Adding a ruin in the countryside, is a far cry from say adding a scroll of raise dead on the body of that last orc the party killed because one of the PCs just happened to die at the end of the last session...
IMO, even just adding a potion or two of healing because you know the party is about to face Vecna two rooms over, is mot the same as adding some obscure ruin in the wilderness...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
I agree it is not the same. I mean dropping some random ruins into an area where it might make absolutely no sense for them to be versus a foe with something that would be logically useful to them (like say a healing potion). Not anywhere near the same.
And for "...mechanics Gygax used to create authenticity..." I'd rephrase as "mechanics Gygax used to create a phantasm of authenticity".
Your so right in this regard. The problem with trying to do simulationism at a world level, with trying to create an authentic feeling world if you will, is that, by their vary natured RPGs only really view the world through the stage upon which the PCs happen to stand.
In Gygaxian Naturalism you have aspects and details that exist in the game that are not really part of play as was brought up in the original OP for this thread and they are there in order to enhance verisimilitude but in actual play there really is only that stage where the players happen to be.
We don't, and can't, create an actual simulation of the entire world and there is no reason that we would want to. The rest of the world ultimatly does not matter. Only the PCs matter, hence mechanics that recreates, as you say, a phantasm of authenticity. It seems real even though in the end its not. Much of the time its just a couple of d10s that have spoken to the DM and the DM has listened to what they are saying.
Jeremy--
That makes sense, but, let's look at it from a larger, earlier step: when designing the area where the PCs will be adventuring, does the DM notice that there are two very deadly encounters next to one another, that the party is going to need some rest, and since the adventure needs a druid somewhere in this area, placing one in between these two encounters would work well?
I mean, take a look at any early TSR module you please, except for "Tomb of Horrors". The author places treasures where they are to help the PCs survive.
The DM doesn't pull helpful things out of midair during the session, but he does design the adventures such that, for example, PCs in the "Temple of Elemental Evil" don't run into the really tough monsters right away.
Sure. The DM is supposed to be trying to be fair about all this after all and make interesting and exciting adventures. Hence the concept of Polders which one finds in most old style D&D adventures. But its up to the players to find the Polder or to use the Polder and if they don't, or if the characters just got unlucky in an encounter that should not have been so tough then the DM does not step in to bail them out.
Here I simply disagree with you. I think there really is some kind of 'one true wayism' in order to achieve Gygaxian Naturalism, or maybe there are a small subset of ways to get there from here. Thats not to say that other styles of play are not just as valid, they are, but I don't think its really possible to say 'if your players are having fun' then automatically your playing Gygaxian Naturalism. I see Gygaxian Naturalism as the set of mechanics used to convey a sense of authenticity to the world as revealed in the OD&D and 1E source books and supplements. Its something that can be considered and it can be compared and contrasted with other styles of play that have evolved since. One, for example, could probably talk of a Paizoian Naturalism which is currently evolving under the direction of Erik, James and the rest of the Paizo crew.I'm not disagreeing that Gygaxian Naturalism requires a particular style of play. In order to achieve this kind of Gygaxian campaign 'feel' means the DM and players need particular approaches to play.
It's not the concept so much as the particular language I felt uneasy about. I've seen too many threads derailed by someone construing "I play an authentic game" as meaning "you other people are doing it wrong" that I'd prefer to use a phrase that has less chance of a negative misconception, although I'm not sure what that could be - Gygaxian Credibility? Oldschool Realism?
OK sounds like me and you are actually in agreement with some possible quibbles on terminology.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Sure. The DM is supposed to be trying to be fair about all this after all and make interesting and exciting adventures. Hence the concept of Polders which one finds in most old style D&D adventures. But its up to the players to find the Polder or to use the Polder and if they don't, or if the characters just got unlucky in an encounter that should not have been so tough then the DM does not step in to bail them out.
(nods) I think we're on the same page, here.
And I think we agree that the idea of polders, and treasure placement, etc. is something of a nod away from simulationist play, for the sake of getting a party of PCs who aren't starting every adventure at 1st Level.
Practical Question:
In my early days of DMing, somewhere about 1981 or so, I wrote up stats for a kind of Laernian dog creature: when struck, it would split into two, with each copy having taken half damage. At the time, that seemed like a neat ability, but probably not so overwhelming.
(Because college kids in 1981 didn't do a lot of playtesting and development...)
So, when I was playing in my friend's campaign, he sent four of these at our 3rd-Level party, with 25 hp per dog, and his description of the fight did not mention that they were duplicating themselves until the top of Round 2, when we were looking at ten of them, each with 20 - 25 hp.
Oh my.
Now, that was an encounter that was much tougher than the DM realized when he placed it there. This wasn't going to be a TPK because of bad die rolls: we were rolling pretty well. This wasn't going to be a TPK because we weren't playing well: we were using smart tactics and trying to use the terrain to our advantage. This was going to be a TPK because the DM had very badly miscalculated the lethality of the encounter.
What do you see a Naturalist DM doing, while running that encounter?