Genus Divitiarum ex Omnibus Vasis

[Admin Pete]

Over at the Treasure Hunters HQ blog by scottanderson he posted with this Genus Divitiarum ex Omnibus Vasis as the title. I used three different online translations and two of them translated it as:

the kind of the splendid store of all the vessels of

and one as

the kind of wealth of all containers

.

He says:

Dungeons are to be devised like so:

Think up the Most Important Treasure in a dungeon or on a particular dungeon level. That treasure establishes the theme of that adventuring area. Every other significant treasure is a variation on the theme. Once those treasures are devised and placed, then the tricks, traps and monsters will be generated and placed as guardians of those prizes.

This is a treasure-based version of Gygaxian Naturalism; some genus divitiarum ex omnibus vasis hierarchy.

I am not sure I understand how the Latin relates to the rest of the post, but I thought it was a novel way to approach building a dungeon by starting with treasure as the first step and I would be interested in comments.

[scottanderson]

I am not a native Latin speaker so my translations are pretty rough. I mean to say "treasures of a family" as in, the main treasure is like the dad and all the little treasures are like his kids. Like a family of similar treasures.

Nathan Jennings, Tetramoph, is working out some tabls to do the same thing. He's much cleverer than I am at these things.

[scottanderson]

Try this: similes oculos circoque locantur

[robkuntz]

There is no such thing as Gygaxian Naturalism. it is a figment of fan imagination attempting to extract a commonality as derived from his designs. But those designs are loose in play and were never consistent in application from Gary's POV from one game to the next. His only credo was to remain loose so as to roll with the changes. So, as always, one can choose to see this from a static design view--a HOW TO MODE--as derived from such published matter or one can look to his other commentary (such as the EnWorld Q&As) where he answers questions about in-game design choices generally. Gary sided with the latter view and otherwise had his proclivities for sure ("balance" being the most obvious and perhaps overburdensome one, depending) but in the end there was no HOW TO for him, so how can there be, in the truest, unalterable sense, a static category as Gygaxian anything?

[Mighty Darci]

Dec 21, 2017 16:46:44 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

There is no such thing as Gygaxian Naturalism. it is a figment of fan imagination attempting to extract a commonality as derived from his designs. But those designs are loose in play and were never consistent in application from Gary's POV from one game to the next. His only credo was to remain loose so as to roll with the changes. So, as always, one can choose to see this from a static design view--a HOW TO MODE--as derived from such published matter or one can look to his other commentary (such as the EnWorld Q&As) where he answers questions about in-game design choices generally. Gary sided with the latter view and otherwise had his proclivities for sure ("balance" being the most obvious and perhaps overburdensome one, depending) but in the end there was no HOW TO for him, so how can there be, in the truest, unalterable sense, a static category as Gygaxian anything?

I have always found the term "Gygaxian Naturalism" to sound unnatural and there are a few places out there that I looked at where "Gygaxian" seems to be a religion. I am not comfortable putting Saint before anyones name, but some places seem to worship "Saint Gygax."

[robkuntz]

Dec 22, 2017 20:37:37 GMT -5 Mighty Darci said:

Dec 21, 2017 16:46:44 GMT -5 robkuntz said:

There is no such thing as Gygaxian Naturalism. it is a figment of fan imagination attempting to extract a commonality as derived from his designs. But those designs are loose in play and were never consistent in application from Gary's POV from one game to the next. His only credo was to remain loose so as to roll with the changes. So, as always, one can choose to see this from a static design view--a HOW TO MODE--as derived from such published matter or one can look to his other commentary (such as the EnWorld Q&As) where he answers questions about in-game design choices generally. Gary sided with the latter view and otherwise had his proclivities for sure ("balance" being the most obvious and perhaps overburdensome one, depending) but in the end there was no HOW TO for him, so how can there be, in the truest, unalterable sense, a static category as Gygaxian anything?

I have always found the term "Gygaxian Naturalism" to sound unnatural and there are a few places out there that I looked at where "Gygaxian" seems to be a religion. I am not comfortable putting Saint before anyones name, but some places seem to worship "Saint Gygax."

It's very interesting how that evolved over time.  The most striking examples, which he himself stepped around as a designer and for good reasons, were revealed in his EnWorld Q&As. I went through these enough to determine the following, which is a commentary from my New Ethos in Game Design:

C52: If you follow the whole of what Classic D&D was meant to be, not only through the main quotes therein by Gygax, but in his ENWorld quotes, you will note a general union of his past thoughts when posed against a foreground of specific questions. However, the overall gist seems to be missing as an understanding of these as general views. When Gary is asked how this or that was done, he answers the question and thus reveals a general example. However, yet another specific question appears wherein he answers it and sets a general example as in the first; but yet another question arises, etc.; and so the cycle elongates as a series of disconnected parts from which no whole is derived if one were to otherwise stand back and view all of these as a philosophic unity.

This is highly representative of a linear thought process attempting to derive wholes through parts where it is clear that how he is answering these is through a granular design mindset. This contradiction arises, once again, due to the rules dependent inquiry forthcoming from an adherence to later editions and formats tied to preciseness, something that Gary never ascribed to. It is also what I experienced in over 10 years of answering questions on the Dragonsfoot forums. The overall tone of these is that there is a certain way, the correct way, the only way. This is the furthest thing from the truth. There is only the way of the moment, and the linear perspective cannot apprehend this when intent upon a singular course.

This also points directly back to the contradictory philosophies espoused by TSR that manifested in the player/GM base notwithstanding mixed exhortations to the contrary (i.e., the confusing DMG Introduction). Gary’s answers reveal that his Classic D&D exhortations to stay granular and make it your own are his views; however, the questions he is asked are posed in such a way to position him as AD&D’s final arbiter (and thus the game-as-consumer connection is reinforced), and therefore no epiphany is reached by their continued repetition even though the core truth of the matter is contained in his very answers.

Granular thought proceeds by way of the generalized to the specific whereas rules dependent inquiry is always seeking the specific. Once upon the latter course, it’s just heaping specific atop specific, which in a Fantasy world of infinite open contexts is a foolhardy procedure at best, as is tacitly indicated by EGG.==Copyright 2013-2017, Robert J, Kuntz.  All Rights Reserved.