I was at Dungeons & Dragons Experience 2009 when I first heard the term Gygaxian Naturalism. There I met the lovely and talented Wil Upchurch who used in the argument as to why 4e didn’t appeal to him. I had no idea what he was talking about.
Feeling about the same way I did on that cold January sojourn to Fort Wayne? You can check out the basic idea at Grognardia. I’m pretty sure the Grognardia scribe, James Maliszewski coined the term.
(On a side note, if you don’t have Grognardia on your list of gaming blogs, slap that bad boy on there. While I don’t always agree with James, I always find his subjects informative and entertaining.)
Here is an ancient painting of E. Gary Gygax, noted naturalist and monster hunter. He holds the skull of the infamous grognard, which he defeated in the Screaming Pits of Internet. He faced this beast alone, which means he was extremely lucky. There is a 20% chance that the grognard is encounter with 1d4 nerd-do-wells, and a full 50% chance it is found at the command of a pack (2d6+3) grogdogs.
I was definitely a neophyte to the cult of Gygax during my formative years. I keenly remember the shock and forlorn I felt after reading Dragon #122 and finding out that founding father left TSR. It was like I being dumped (something I had some experience with). At the time I was sure it spelled the end of D&D. Ah, young, hormonal emotions! I still have a soft spot for all things Gygaxian.
That said, Gygaxian Naturalism puzzles me. It’s not that I don’t get the concept—James Malizewski does a fantastic job of explaining it—I just don’t think it is a defining nature of D&D.
Hey! You in the back—the one staring at me with that burn the world look and gnashing your teeth—settle down. Let me explain. I can’t destroy the world with this idea just yet.
This doesn’t mean that Gygaxian Naturalism doesn’t belong in D&D. It’s a great mechanic for worldbuilding.
Any objective reading of AD&D books or (1e in the more current parlance) will notice its assumptions are firmly set in the World of Greyhawk. It didn’t tell you that you had to use Greyhawk, but it did say that if you wanted official material, some of it would come musky with Greyhawk. All of us responded to that fact in different ways. You can split people of a certain age that gnashed their teeth on AD&D into one of three camps: Greyhawk lovers, the clueless, and the trailblazers.
Those like me—the Greyhawk lovers—would pick up on Gygax’s sparse story elements and try to piece together the story we knew existed somewhere in Lake Geneva. When they invented the internet, it created much bickering on pay-by-the-hour AOL.
The clueless, for the most part, didn’t even think about all those strange names. To these folks it was shallow fluff, and they just rolled with it. They created worlds, or used the very sparsely detailed Greyhawk setting, often twisting it to their own purposes, other times they just kicked in door, killed, monster, and repeat until they were drunk with the tingley warmth that only combat P0rn can give you.
The trailblazers were gamers with their own vision. They molded their own worlds, created their own assumptions, other times they railed against Greyhawk. I think Dragonlance, Darksun, and even Spelljammer are trailblazer games, each featuring longer treks from source. Dragonlance is D&D with kender, worthless gold, and no clerics. Darksun is D&D meets sword and planet meets Mad Max. Spelljammer is D&D meets “look 40K is doing pretty well.” Each one is an attempt to move D&D away from its Greyhawk roots. Each, in some way, was attempt to redefine it.
If you think 4e started this, you haven’t been paying attention. From Dragonlance to Eberron, the D&D brand often looks to redefine the assumptions implicit within Greyhawk flavor supremacy. In 4e many of the last vestiges of Gygaxian Naturalism were stripped away for a more “gamist” approach. The idea was that DMs could use the monster any way they wanted. The idea was that they would have more freedom of context purely though omission. Instead encounter groups were used. It wasn’t that successful. You can see from the previews of Monster Vault Wizards is adding more context to monster background. Though not quite the mechanical presence heralded by the proponents of Gygaxian Naturalism, it does do more to cast the creature within the assumed game world (now just called “the world).
Pathfinder on the other hand fully embraces much of Gygaxian Naturalism, using it to speak directly to the Golarion setting (along with great context and evocative story). It’s an extremely good fit. While I’m skeptical that we need Gygaxian Naturalism in everything d&d, it’s helpful, fun (if you’re into that sort of thing), and evocative. It is not monolithic. Rather, when I cleave, I cleave to this advice from the 1e Dungeon Master’s Guide.
“In any event, do not allow either the demands of “realism” or impossible make-believe to spoil your milieu. Climate and ecology are simple reminders to use a bit of care!”
- Page 88
Gygaxian naturalism features great reminders to use a bit of care.
Postscript: For all you veterans out there—thank you for your service. You are a class of hero that we can all agree on.
I just love reading threads about things like Gygaxian Naturalism, the banter always enlightens and provides fresh ideas. I was reading this, and the blog on Grognardia, and something occured to me:
Wait a minute, aren’t these games all based on our imagination anyway?
Seems to me, just because 4E doesn’t explicitly state the mating habits of Gnolls, that doesnt mean I can’t have my adventurers run accross two males duking it out for a females affections, if it fits my storyline. All I have to do is make the details up. If I need ideas, I can always use 3E, Pathfinder, or that little thing I like to call the Interweb, to name a few.
That being said, I am sure there were gamers on AD&D and 3E who couldn’t have cared less about Gygaxian Naturalism, or DM’s who changed the pack structure of a set of monsters just to fit an encounter.
When I first started your post, I did indeed start “gnashing my teeth”. I started with the old “Blue Box” edition of Basic D&D, moved on to 1st Edition, and have been playing the game off and on ever since. Over the years I found myself more and more in line with Gygaxian Naturalism, as you call it, simply because I enjoy the more detail-oriented aspects of world development and the “realism” this can often lend to the game, allowing players to more fully immerse themselves in the setting, and hopefully, their characters.
I am honestly disappointed with 4E and pretty much came to the same conclusion you have – it has become more of a “gamist” version of the game and much of the Gygaxian Naturalism has been stripped away. However, I never really put much thought into why I felt that way until I read your post and it became more clear to me. As many have said before, 4E feels like more of a tabletop version of a stand-alone computer RPG or MMORPG. While I can see the pros and cons to the system, as there with any incarnation of a game, it simply doesn’t suit my tastes because of its lack of “old school” style and flavor.
But then, any good gaming group is able to take just about any game system and adapt it to their preferred style of play, and that includes the setting itself – it just takes a little more effort if that system happens to be further away from that particular group’s style. Since 4E has, in my eyes, strayed far from what I consider an appealing version of the game, it would take more effort on my part to make the system work for my setting. So, perhaps all these years later, D&D remains basically the same system and I have grown old in my ways and don’t want to spend the time customizing a new system to tried and true methods and preferences.
In the end, it really doesn’t matter how good or bad any game system is, or even what anyone else thinks about it. As long as a gaming group is using the system in their own way and having fun while doing it, that’s all that really matters.
Excellent post, thanks for the insight.
I’m glad you found some insight there. That’s always my goal.
I started with the Moldvay box (for the dice and B2) and AD&D. When I was younger the strange bits of “Gygaxian Naturalism,” as they’re now called, were exciting and evocative, that is until I started to use them. As a young DM I was continually frustrated about not getting the good stuff when I rolled randomly for these ecological details. And I was under the mistaken impression that if I didn’t roll them, I couldn’t use them.
I wasn’t until I read the AD&D Dungeon Master’s Guide, bits of Dragon magazine, and starting watching and kibitzing with other DMs that I realized that you didn’t have to be a slave to the dice when you were a DM. They serve you, not the other way around.
Years of home games and administering organized play campaign contribute to my cringing at the last vestiges of the more random aspects of Gygaxian Naturalism.
This is especially the case where the legacy of this creeps into combat abilities of monsters. The worse of this is the % chance to summon found in many devils. For instance, the ice devil in Pathfinder has a 1/day spell-like ability to summon 2 bone devils, but only with a 50% chance. Some would argue that this makes the encounter more dangerous. I would argue that it makes the encounter swingy. It could make it more dangerous, it could not, which makes it hard for the GM to intelligently gauge his or her adventure flow.
We happily stripped this out of 4e, and I would do it again in a heartbeat (though I’m a little late for Pathfinder). I think there are better ways to keep the flavor of devils as summoners without cleaving to this swingy mechanic. So-called Gygaxian Naturalism was there to create context—the illusion that the worlds we are playing in are somehow real—not numerical hamstrings.
Slight divergence from the topic here, but I was always a fan of the flavor of fiends summoning other fiends coming at the expense of the fiend owing a favor to the other fiends that come to their aid. Thus, a fiend would be loathe to summon another fiend unless they really needed to, because then they owe some kind of pact to their reinforcements.
Obviously Balors or Pit Fiends are likely to just have some fiends whose markers they can call in for pre-arranged purposes or out of sheer fear, but especially the “middle management” fiends probably hate that someone slightly lower in the advancement track now has some thing on them.
What I’m getting at, I guess, is that it would be really interesting if the rules could somehow reflect this kind of pact-making on the fly for allies to reinforce the flavor aspect of this.
Sorry for the digression there . . .
I guess I stand on the opposite side of the spectrum here. When it comes to some of these random things like the % chance to summon, I like those in the game because they do indeed add a measure of unpredictability to the game and setting and hopefully encourage players to think on their feet and to always be wary of something happening they weren’t prepared for. While this may sometimes work to the detriment of players, that same randomness should always be thrown in for situations that may make it advantageous as well.
Some might argue that this makes it difficult to gauge and control play balance in terms of challenge ratings for encounters, treasure found, etc. This may be the case if the rules are followed in a hard and steadfast manner, but in the end, as you mentioned, you shouldn’t be a slave to the dice or the rules. In the example you provided, if two bone devils are summoned and you know the players can’t handle them, throw something in there to make it more interesting. What if the two bone devils that got summoned were fighting one another just prior to being summoned, over something perhaps completely trivial, or perhaps over something important that you can add to the overall adventure. At the same time this will add some depth to the game and give the impression that the creatures in the multiverse lead their own lives aside from the players. Or perhaps the bone devils summoned have a particular grudge against this particular ice devil summoning them and they decide to take advantage of the situation and turn on their summoner.
I guess I’m an advocate of that randomness in the game because it exists in the real world, as we know all too well. I enjoy the fantasy setting, but I like to lend it elements of realism as well in order to make it that much more believable and real to the players. Keep them on their toes, keep them guessing, and always challenge them…but also be sure to reward them well for their efforts, especially when they manage to confront the unexpected and come through victorious. In my opinion, this is the kind of thing that makes a game, a setting, a group…have that much more fun and create gaming experiences that are even more memorable. =)
The Monster Vault really is a jaw-dropping reversal from the encounter suggestions in MM. It isn’t the ecology notes in late AD&D, but it is pretty significant and a recognition of the game needing to be much more than a minis clash or delve. Context matters. RP matters. Story matters. I think part of what got us to the 4E MM is the concept of being approachable and removing barriers. Great, but when you remove the context/story you end up with shallow. The funny thing is that all designers love story, setting, RP, etc. Somehow they thought they could remove that, make it approachable, and that all DMs would magically add it back in their way. Wrong. Even good authors produced surprisingly shallow adventures. Look at most early 4E official published adventures or the writer’s guidelines for LFR (which suggest every adventure should be setting independent and not provide history/lore). Even the casual monty haul player wants more than orc and pie in a featureless room. The pendulum swings and I cheer.
I think part of that had to do with a conflict of ideas during the development of 4e. There were definitely those of us in the grognardian camp, but even then we didn’t agree all the time. Where unchecked disagreements flourish, compromises are made. Sometimes those compromises only make sense internally.
Rodney, Logan, and Matt were tasked with reversing that, and from what I’ve seen they’ve done an awesome job. I’m not surprised. That’s a good team.
That said, I got my first peak at the Pathfinder Bestiary 2 yesterday, and while I have not delved deeply into its pages, it is an awe-inspiring book, one might say brilliant. Even if you’re a 4e die-hard, you owe it to yourself to take a peek inside. The art is stunning, at times terrifying and shocking (in good ways), and the flavor is fantastic. I’m sure I’ll have more to say on the rules once I get a chance to dig into them.
If you love monsters, you’re a happy camper. Two very good monster products are coming right on the heels of one another. Holidays 2010 will now be known as the Feast of Monsters.
I actually picked up the Monster Vault, even though I don’t run 4E, mainly out of curiosity and because I can use the counters for my Pathfinder game. When looking through the book, at first I was a bit perplexed at the sheer number of stat blocks for what seemed like simple creatures, but then I realized what was actually going on . . . if you build a 4E ecounter “right,” with so many varied types of, say, hill giants, you can make a hill giant encounter with all hill giants, instead of trying to figure out why Slammy the Hill Giant is hanging out with quicklings and pterodactyls in their suggested encounters (I’m just making this up, but its not too much of a stretch).
Right!
There is part of me that thinks that the great monster book that has yet to be written is a tome that makes the Pathfinder Core Rulebook seem light and pithy. DMs need a lot of variety, but variety within context. Encounter groups didn’t work because they were a kludge. RPGers hate kludges and can see them a mile away. The tact taken in Monster Vault is much better, more seamless. Pathfinder (and earlier iterations of 3e) gets around it by creating a matrix to create monster variants. That matrix is far too complex for its end goals, BTW, and I think many GMs ignore much of their bitsy implementations while still sometime railing against errors they spot in published stat blocks, but that’s the price of doing business with the 3e-ish monster creation rules.
Or is it?
Encounter groups a kludge is an understatement! And, yeah, when all we had was the 4E MM, life was tough. All you could do was level up/down and play with modifying a few powers. But now we have a tremendous amount of variety. It has crossed my mind that I really don’t need another 4E monster book (though I will happily devour more). With all of the powers in so many books (let alone Monster Builder/Compendium) I can create custom monsters really easily. I can look for a certain level controller/Leader that is undead, find a reasonable one, and then exchange powers with other controller/leaders until I have what I want. With a working Monster Builder, it is incredible. I hated stat blocks in 3.5 and reading them as a DM. Building and working with 4E stat blocks is fantastic. The key is to not let this awesome flash trick you into dropping RP and context. Designers and Dungeon authors alike show this. They spend 0 time on what the combat should really feel like. Sit at a table with an average DM, and it isn’t uncommon to have very little flavor during combat… but they are holding monsters with incredible flavor. That monster just spat up shadow essence and heaved it into me! I mean, hit my Fort defense for 10 damage and ongoing.