Community

hi,
looking at the many people who post threads saying that 4E isnt D&D I thought I would look into why that is and I have found a very well thought out explanation for it that syncs with the way I feel about the current edition.(Note, this is a repost from the Paizo message boards, full thread found here http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/co … aturalism)

Posted by Pax Veritas

I wish to share James Maliszewski's outstanding article from Grognardia (see below) with the 3.5/d20/OGL/PRPG community because it eloquently defines the Gygaxian Naturalism that has been present during much of the history and tradition of D&D. The 4E forum has recently made me feel very unwelcome, and this article belongs to the forum most concerned about preserving the history and traditions of the hobby of role-playing. James honors our Paizonian leader, Erik Mona, by quoting him on the front page of his blog.

IMHO, among the many different facets of the "feel" of the game formerly solely known as Dungeons and Dragons (now affectionately played as Pathfinder Role-playing Game, Castles & Crusades, and many, many others....) Gygaxian "Naturalism" as James describes it has been central to much of the campaigning I've done over the past 25 years. Gygaxian "Naturalism" is still strongly present in the games I DM today, and the games I play in. I also perceive a lot of what James describes in his description of Gygaxian "Naturalism" to be found in the monthly Pathfinder Chronicles I receive from PAIZO.

After reading the article, feel free to discuss your concept of Gygaxian Naturalism as you see it, or in what ways it captures part of the essence of what the "feel" of the game is all about, along with any related discussions.

The Article, Gygaxian "Naturalism" by James Maliszewski:
"I refer, from time to time, to a concept called "Gygaxian Naturalism." I realize that I've never actually explained what I mean by this phrase. As I use it, it refers to a tendency, present in the OD&D rules and reaching its fullest flower in AD&D, to go beyond describing monsters purely as opponents/obstacles for the player characters by giving game mechanics that serve little purpose other than to ground those monsters in the campaign world.

This naturalism can take many forms. For example, OD&D often tells us that for every X number of monster Y, there's a chance that monster Z might also be found in their lair. In the case of the djinn and efreet, as another example, we find that they both can create nourishing food and potable beverages, as well as many other kinds of materials through the use of their innate powers. In AD&D, these sorts of things get expanded upon greatly, with the Monster Manual telling us how many females and children can be found in a monster lair and giving many creatures powers and abilities that don't serve a specifically combat-oriented purpose, such as a pixie's ability to know alignment, for instance.

The intention behind Gygaxian Naturalism is to paint a picture of a "real" world, which is to say, a world that exists for reasons other than purely gaming ones. The implication is that monsters have lives of their own and thus go about their business doing various things until they encounter the player characters. Exactly what they do is described by reference to game mechanics, whether it be the numbers of non-combatants in a lair or spell-like abilities that help the monster do whatever it naturally does when it's not facing off against an adventuring party.

A consequence of Gygaxian Naturalism is that it grounds D&D a bit more in a pseudo-reality. I don't mean to imply that it's realistic in any meaningful sense, only that its fantasy follows "natural" laws of a sort, much in the way that, for example, I know that there are squirrels and raccoons and rabbits in my neighborhood who go about their business when I'm not seeing them in my yard or chasing them away from my recycling bins. That's one reason why AD&D has stats for so many kinds of "ordinary" animals: you can't build a "real" world without stats for sheep and cows and horses and such, because you never know when the PCs might need to kill one.

The end result of this is that Gygaxian fantasy is a simulation -- a fantastical one, to be sure, but a simulation nonetheless. The downside is that it's a very specific kind of simulation and it carries with it a lot of assumptions and expectations that not everyone shares. I know many OD&Ders, for example, who don't like "naturalistic" orcs, preferring them instead to be spawned from black ooze that bubbles up from the mythic underworld that is the dungeon. Likewise, the tendency to provide stats for everything is a self-perpetuating one, reaching its zenith in 3e, in which the game almost literally did stat out every conceivable thing with which your character might interact. Needless to say, some find this to be too much, myself included.

Gygaxian Naturalism survived Gygax's involvement in the development of Dungeons & Dragons and formed one the most important, if often only sub-consciously, creative foundations of the game through its second and third editions. My read of the latest edition is that it largely rejects Gygaxian Naturalism without embracing the alternative offered by some interpretations of OD&D, instead opting for a different model altogether. I myself have drunk deeply from the wells of Gygaxian Naturalism, so it's second nature to me now. I won't go so far as to say that Gary's approach is inseparable from D&D, because that's certainly not the case, but I will say that it's so deeply ingrained -- even in OD&D, particularly if you add the supplements -- that, to remove it, is very likely to have the effect of creating a different game entirely -- certainly a different one that what has been called D&D for most of the game's existence."

James Maliszewski's blog (excellent blog by the way) can be found at: grognardia.blogspot.com

But it gives you the background info to use the monsters in your game.
How would you know how to use elves in your game without any background info at all except for a stat block?

My read of the latest edition is that it largely rejects Gygaxian Naturalism

First of all, let's drop the "Gygaxian" from "Gygaxian Naturalism". Adding fluff detail to your rulebooks wasn't invented by Gygax.

4e has its very own naturalism, similar to 3e's. Yes, it is more fill-in-the-blanks in nature, but a lot of DMs enjoy the freedom that this allows them in shaping their campaign world, where instead of having to override whatever preexisting flavor was already presumed in the books, they have a slate which is a bit more clear.

It's really a question of whether the DM likes to adapt the game world to their liking, or adapts themselves to the game world's fluff. Some prefer the former, some prefer the latter, and there is no correct answer here.

The explanation of 4E hate is that many people don't enjoy 4E. It's not the same game as 3.5, it has some quite significant changes, and it's not reasonable to expect that everyone who enjoyed a previous edition will enjoy the new one.

There's nothing wrong with that, they're entitled to their opinion, and I'd be equally upset if people kept telling me that I was under some obligation to buy and enjoy 3.5.

The majority of those on the forums who don't like 4E are intelligent, literate people who have a lot to add to the debate, drawing on their experience with past incarnations of the game, and I think it's great that they're continuing to stay with the community even if the current product doesn't run to their tastes.

how would i know how to use elves without gygaxian naturalism?

step 1) grab pencil
step 2) grab notebook
step 3) use brain and think up of how elves work in my world
step 4) write down idea.

gygaxian naturalism is only useful if there is the assumption of a default world where those groupings make sense. 4th ed gives suggestions on groups to use but does not attempt to say anything else.