Sandy Petersen, in particular, his work in Trollpak would be one non-dragon example.

I like to put a little thought into the food chain so I have an idea what critters can be run into.

For non-naturalistic systems, the fae are a major one. Goblins, redcaps (bugbears), elf knights, and the like can be found wherever the Veil is a little thin. Also, I use the concept of spontaneous generation, so "vermin" can be discovered anywhere the conditions are right. As orcs were a study in weaponizing humanoid spontaneous generation, they can be discovered anyplace there is a clay pit, some fresh corpses, and a supply of alchemical reagent.

Quote from: Elfdart;922199But how many people actually give detailed description of the ecology of their monsters beyond a brief note here or there, or possibly a simple food chain diagram ("wolves eat villagers' sheep, ogres eat villagers, dragons eat maidens")? Aside from the authors in Dragon Magazine, I mean.

There was a period in TSR history where this reached a fairly stupid level of obsession, and I've seen similar stuff from other RPGs in various other times.

If ecology is actually part of the game, why not? But it has to evoke a genre, not try to simulate biology. If I did a Dune game, I'd want ecology to be part of it.

Also, I always enjoyed the BS-y ecology in Monster Manuals... it would be cooler if there were more ways to interact with it. If there were spells or artifacts you could collect to change some property of a biome in an area. To me it would almost be like a world scale version of finding a key to unlock a door. Why not, if you can make it fun?

EDIT: If you did a Magic: The Gathering RPG, you'd have to have characteristics for lands and special abilities that lands can perform. Just treat it like any other game object that interacts with things. If it captured people's imaginations, it might be fun.

Some of you are getting pretty "one true way" about this. Seems like you're being a bit defensive, like you want to head off the idea that your own games might be lacking something you don't want to do? Clearly when anything gets to the stage that players aren't enjoying it, then they'd do well to stop... But if players are enjoying it, what's the harm? Personally, I tend to appreciate almost anything a GM or setting does in the way of having things make sense and have reasons behind them, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the game or make things less fun - and I'm far more likely to be put off by evoking/copying a genre, or thoughtlessly adding stuff that doesn't seem to make any sense. YMMV

Quote from: RPGPundit;922912There was a period in TSR history where this reached a fairly stupid level of obsession, and I've seen similar stuff from other RPGs in various other times.

This is the main reason I don't like traditional Dragon magazine style ecologies. Plenty of the monsters' survival strategy wasn't actually effective when viewed through game theory (in the statistical sense).

Quote from: Ashakyre;922947If ecology is actually part of the game, why not? But it has to evoke a genre, not try to simulate biology. If I did a Dune game, I'd want ecology to be part of it.

That's a very specific kind of example, however.

Quote from: RPGPundit;923823That's a very specific kind of example, however.

Examples tend to be specific.

"Is X good or bad" is far less interesting to me than "how can you do X well?" It looks to me like we've got an untapped vein for creative game design here, but it's hard to pull off because there aren't as many examples to imitate.

Quote from: Ashakyre;923832Examples tend to be specific.

"Is X good or bad" is far less interesting to me than "how can you do X well?" It looks to me like we've got an untapped vein for creative game design here, but it's hard to pull off because there aren't as many examples to imitate.

What I meant is that in a setting like Dune, ecology is an absolutely central feature. In other settings, it isn't.

Quote from: RPGPundit;924430What I meant is that in a setting like Dune, ecology is an absolutely central feature. In other settings, it isn't.

Then there may not be much difference between our positions. A lot of D&D ecology is pretty silly, because it's not needed, but if someone is looking for an interesting design space, ecology would work if you had a setting it was interesting and distinctive.

I'm someone who usually plays much tamer settings where mainly there are people and animals and the monsters are either relatively rare, or tend to sort of like more different animals with yes their own consistent place in the ecology. I get that most D&D GM's who have anything like my own tastes in having world make sense and be internally consistent, only pick and choose what things (races, classes, monsters, magic) from the published D&D books actually exist in their own campaigns. It's still generally a struggle for me looking at D&D materials such as a Monster Manual, because they seem to present a massive range of power levels and creatures with immunities to thinks like all physical attacks, especially when they say things about them like how they fit into a world ecology, because so many of them seem so powerful that they'd tend to unbalance any of my world ecologies if they were around, and it tends to overwhelm me to try to apply my usual attempts to grasp what's going on in my game worlds and why, when there are so many powerful monsters with magic powers and extremely different power levels, with many of them being very destructive and hostile. Even if I didn't care about realism, I find it hard to even think what would happen if so many such monsters were all over the place. What would be a stable system that had all those things in it? I guess it'd be like the Amazon, where too it's too complex for human scientists to have even identified most of the species that are there.

Not worrying about it too much seems like the only option for such settings/bestiaries, although you can of course pretend like it makes sense (or not care) to whatever level satisfies you.

Quote from: Skarg;924447I'm someone who usually plays much tamer settings where mainly there are people and animals and the monsters are either relatively rare, or tend to sort of like more different animals with yes their own consistent place in the ecology. I get that most D&D GM's who have anything like my own tastes in having world make sense and be internally consistent, only pick and choose what things (races, classes, monsters, magic) from the published D&D books actually exist in their own campaigns. It's still generally a struggle for me looking at D&D materials such as a Monster Manual, because they seem to present a massive range of power levels and creatures with immunities to thinks like all physical attacks, especially when they say things about them like how they fit into a world ecology, because so many of them seem so powerful that they'd tend to unbalance any of my world ecologies if they were around, and it tends to overwhelm me to try to apply my usual attempts to grasp what's going on in my game worlds and why, when there are so many powerful monsters with magic powers and extremely different power levels, with many of them being very destructive and hostile. Even if I didn't care about realism, I find it hard to even think what would happen if so many such monsters were all over the place. What would be a stable system that had all those things in it? I guess it'd be like the Amazon, where too it's too complex for human scientists to have even identified most of the species that are there.

Not worrying about it too much seems like the only option for such settings/bestiaries, although you can of course pretend like it makes sense (or not care) to whatever level satisfies you.

This is part of the reason I prefer fantastical ecologies rather than realistic ones. Going by the monster manuals most settings should be death worlds.

I never particularly found dungeon crawling to be very realistic. Unless only rare heroes of legend clear out ancient ruins, most ancient ruins would be long since picked clean of traps and treasures or outright collapsed into dust. The closest I've seen to internal consistency is the idea that dungeons are intentionally constructed (e.g. wizards needs monsters for spell components, the dungeon is alive, the dungeon is a trap by the villain, the dungeon is a prison for a powerful spirit, etc).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;924459I never particularly found dungeon crawling to be very realistic.

It isn't; it exists to constrain players who would otherwise take one look at the map and decide to run off the end of it to see what's there, instead of engaging with the DM's prepared adventures.

It's a very useful construct, though, and it's easy to teach and for newbies to manage, on both sides of the screen.  But not realistic, and certainly not necessary.  If you have players that can be relied upon to get on board with the premise, natural caves, ruined border forts or abandoned towns can serve the same purpose.

To get back on track, I tend to run more Bronze Age-y stuff, where there are civilized fortress city-states surrounded by some farmland and a whole lot of hostile wilderness.  There are natural animals, bandits and aggressive tribes of nomads out there that make travelling dangerous, but there are also unique monsters like the Nemean Lion, Erymanthian Boar, Lernaean Hydra, Zagros Chimera, or the Hag of Eridu that don't follow any rules and don't need to.  Most heroic myth divides the world into Here, which is safe and familiar and follows natural rules, and There, which is where the adventure happens and we are not at home to Mr. Physics.  Most of the Monster Manual stays squarely over There.

Quote from: daniel_ream;924487It isn't; it exists to constrain players who would otherwise take one look at the map and decide to run off the end of it to see what's there, instead of engaging with the DM's prepared adventures.

It exists because it is easy to play a pickup game of dungeon crawling whereas something that requires the same five players to show up week in and week out creates scheduling issues that aren't there for dungeon crawling and because creating and running the constrained environment of a dungeon makes it much easier to become a DM. It's far easier to create and run a dungeon than to create and run a functioning and interesting county, shire, town, or country.

QuoteIt's a very useful construct, though, and it's easy to teach and for newbies to manage, on both sides of the screen.

Hence the enduring popularity.

QuoteMost heroic myth divides the world into Here, which is safe and familiar and follows natural rules, and There, which is where the adventure happens and we are not at home to Mr. Physics.  Most of the Monster Manual stays squarely over There.

I find that preferable myself.

Quote from: Ashakyre;924434Then there may not be much difference between our positions. A lot of D&D ecology is pretty silly, because it's not needed, but if someone is looking for an interesting design space, ecology would work if you had a setting it was interesting and distinctive.

Yes, sure. If one of the central themes of your setting is somehow about the harshness or strangeness of the environment, you'd better write about that.  If your environment is just standard, then it's totally not necessarily to waste a lot of time on the biology or life-cycle of the Owlbear or whatever.