D&D General Jaquaying the dungeon - a term to avoid

[MGibster]

Is it still okay for me to describe a dungeon or other aspect of a module as Gygaxian when it has something completely ridiculous in it?

 

[Reynard]

Yeah. I'm just going to call it making a dungeon. There's no reason for this weird bit of jargon.

Terminology is useful for discussions. Your comment suggests all dungeons are designed equally, with similar intent, and that's just not true. Your being dismissive here displays a lack of interest in the subject, which is fine, but maybe let people that want to actually discuss the nuances of dungeon design do so.

 

[Reynard]

Is it still okay for me to describe a dungeon or other aspect of a module as Gygaxian when it has something completely ridiculous in it?

I thought "Gygaxian" meant a specific kind of "naturalism" in the dungeon, related to dungeon ecology concerns.

Oh no, we are talking about specifics and jargon. We should just call it a "dungeon" and be done with it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I thought "Gygaxian" meant a specific kind of "naturalism" in the dungeon, related to dungeon ecology concerns.

Oh no, we are talking about specifics and jargon. We should just call it a "dungeon" and be done with it.

There's nothing wrong with using specifics, but if every sentence includes multiple terms that one has to go read blog posts to know what is being discussed, there's no real point in having that conversation in a public forum, since it's essentially a private conversation for the alleged cool kids. Take that to a private Discord server and be done with it.

"Gygaxian naturalism" isn't terrible opaque -- it's naturalism, as described by Gygax -- but nonsense like "Doyleist" is intentionally and unnecessarily exclusionary.

 

[aco175]

Yes, I literally made an account just to come in here and say this, because holy crap, six freaking pages of people saying "she said to take her name off it, so just stop using her name for it" when she literally never said that is way, way too much.

Welcome to the boards, glad you jumped into this thread.

 

[MGibster]

Terminology is useful for discussions. Your comment suggests all dungeons are designed equally, with similar intent, and that's just not true. Your being dismissive here displays a lack of interest in the subject, which is fine, but maybe let people that want to actually discuss the nuances of dungeon design do so.

I'm not in your office slapping your hands to prevent you from typing. Someone offered an opinion and I responded in agreement. Who knows? In a few years gamers might show up asking, "What's this Xandering I keep reading about in electronic messages we've recovered from before the Crash?" Or maybe it'll be as ubiquitous as hit points and attributes and everyone will know what it is automatically.

I thought "Gygaxian" meant a specific kind of "naturalism" in the dungeon, related to dungeon ecology concerns.

It might. Though I'm not too sure where a Sphere of Annihilation fits into naturalism.

 

[Reynard]

It might. Though I'm not too sure where a Sphere of Annihilation fits into naturalism.

I really wish people would stop thinking of tournament modules as "the way it was meant to be played" -- especially that one.

 

[Charlaquin]

It might. Though I'm not too sure where a Sphere of Annihilation fits into naturalism.

My understanding is that “Gygaxian” just means “like Gygax(‘s approach)”, and can refer to anything from writing style to design sensibility. “Gygaxian naturalism” specifically refers to a sort of pseudo-naturalism used to justify the presence of obviously unnatural fantasy elements in an environment. For example, saying that the Caves of Chaos were some kind of social experiment engineered by a mad wizard. The implication being that this was how Gygax did it.

 

[MGibster]

I really wish people would stop thinking of tournament modules as "the way it was meant to be played" -- especially that one.

At least back in the day, when players were far more isolated from one another than they are today, if you pick up an official AD&D module there are odds you're going to think this is how the game is supposed to be played. You don't have many other frames of reference.

 

[Reynard]

At least back in the day, when players were far more isolated from one another than they are today, if you pick up an official AD&D module there are odds you're going to think this is how the game is supposed to be played. You don't have many other frames of reference.

Except that module was explicit about its origins and purpose. For better or worse, B2 was explicitly "the way it was meant to be played." Folks usually bring out Tomb of Horrors as a cudgel.