Toy Box Naturalism

 

(( Some spectacular Monster Hunter art by Valki Uniguri ))

I promised myself this'd be a short one and failed, but bear with me for a moment...

So first off, I can't sing the praises of Warren's Toy Box Creativity post enough - It feels both like a spectacular manifesto towards a kind of freeform creativity I deeply admire/enjoy/strive for and it's a spectacular homage to one of the world's greatest creative forces; Akira Toriyama. The settings I most like are those that surprise and delight by not weighing themselves down with limiting taxonomy and lore explanations that are beholden to a certain sense of "realism"[*1] Most of my favorite works (Final Fantasy, Serial Experiments: Lain, .hack, Metal Gear, most recently Blame!) are full of plot holes and potential "well actually"s about how "people would/should react" or how science works in our world and how the science of their world is inconsistent, etc, etc. But these works gleefully skip by these in favor of focusing on relatable characters, stunning aesthetics and scenarios you lose yourself in via Toy Box Creativity. 

Toy Box Creativity is being able to tell my favorite person on the planet that "Her faces shines like radiant moonlight, brightening even the gloomiest night with a calm serenity." Where as adherence to "realism" or taxonomy might say "Well actually, besides the fact that she's clearly not a celestial body with that kind of importance to anyone but you, the lumens coming off her face are nowhere near that of a moon, nor would they be enough to light up any significant area." It's a lack of romanticism and free form emotionally charged imagination that I find tiring and thoroughly uninspired. Fuck that, my girl is so beautiful she makes the stars weep. Gravity shifts when our gazes meet. Magic is real and she smells vanilla and bergamot. [[Getting off topic]]

In many ways Toy Box Creativity is freeform "season to taste" cooking, while more formulaic and "realistically" beholden works are more like baking. And yeah I can understand why a baker would have an aneurism if you told them just to "eyeball" how much salt a dish needed, or just to add "whatever spices smell good." They're simply different goals and styles.

HOWEVER

Much like knowing what heat to use when pan frying a steak, or the consequences of using butter vs olive oil, a degree of tact and logic can bring out new and exciting flavors. If you're familiar with Gygaxian Naturalism you may see where this is going (though I try to avoid what I dislike about said Naturalism)[*5]. Why spend your imagination worrying about exactly how the ray gun works or why or how your cowboy adventurers can't reverse engineer it ("it's simply technology beyond your comprehension" because that tech would forever change the game world), WHEN INSTEAD you may want to consider how they might gather acids to refill the ray gun's charge cartridges, or how the local community near the UFO crash site might become a huge boom town of folks trying to harvest all the precious new alloys. It's a step towards "realism" without fully dipping into "a UFO crash changes everything technological and makes no sense" without simply saying "we'll never talk about the UFO crash again after this session". It's a blurry line, but one I think is worth probing at.

It's a style that I employ frequently that favors extrapolation over explanation, and is all too happy to tell you "things just are that way" or "assume it makes sense" when it needs to. Let's call it "Toy Box Naturalism" ~~~

Ballad of the Dancing Dog

((Fantastic art of Zinogre by Crooked Nose Arts - I literally own 5 of this guy's posters, this style is just so good))

OK we all know I love Monster Hunter at this point, yeah? To me Monster Hunter is quintessential Toy Box Naturalism. There's Dragons, Machine Guns, talking cats, Insect Glaives and so much wild nonsense and it all makes sense. Or at the very least makes sense within the context of each other, and interacts in ways that make the world feel truly connected. A more depraved person than I could sit here all day poking holes in Monster Hunter in the name of realism[*2] but generally Monster Hunter likes to have its ecosystems feel like believable living worlds, even if there's incredible jumps of logic and ridiculous add-ins. Let's take a peek at an example:

Zinogre, the Lord of Lightning, is a fanged wyvern with electrical capabilities. He dances, he howls, his hairs will stand up on end and then he'll call down lightning to zap you. This on its own is perfectly fine. You can absolutely just say "Yeah the break dancing dog is magical and has lightning powers, assume it makes sense." But Monster Hunter takes it a step further to make its world feel real: It answers how Zinogre casts lightning. Zinogre actually has a symbiotic relationship with Thunderbugs. The sparky dog protects Thunderbugs from predators and in turn the Thunderbugs help channel and conduct Zinogre's innate electrical abilities to give the appearance of the beast calling down thunder. 

"Oooh so it's the Thunderbugs that let it shoot lightning. That makes sense now and feels realistic!" even though the fact that a bug can just shoot lightning is equally improbably wild and fantastical and toy boxy. And yet, it does make sense and it does make the world feel realistic. The question of "why can the dog shoot lightning" wasn't answered in the name of appealing to realism or even shunting Zinogre out the realm of the magical, rather the question was answered to make the world feel deeper and more interconnected. Because there is no answer to why Thunderbugs can do that, or how they coordinate so well with Zinogre. But you do know that you use Thunderbugs to makes shock traps, so when shock traps don't work on Zinogre (even though they work on many other lightning affinity wyverns), the world comes alive.

And that's where Toy Box Naturalism comes in, it's less about making the world make 100% sense, or making it feel realistic or like everything has an explanation. It's about making the world feel connected. I don't care if the local ecology can actually support the diet of a dinosaur (calories, atmosphere, etc), I'm far more interested in how long it takes for a dinosaur to hatch and if it'll be my friend if I'm there when it does. And have other people tamed dinosaurs? Dinotopia isn't particularly what I'd call realistic, nor are its designs particularly constrained to one genre (though obviously "dinosaurs" are a big theme), but its world feels remarkably consistent and connected.

Living in a Materia World

To me Naturalism and Toy Box Creativity are not diametrically opposed, but rather go together like uncooked butter (also a baking ingredient) and steak[*3], you just need to cook for a while (no need to spend the hours baking true Naturalism takes though though). Blending the dry, pragmatic, cause-effect Naturalism with a vibrant liberating "assume it makes sense" Toy Box Creativity, frees us up to only use Naturalism to answer the questions we think are fun. We don't need to explain how the Thunderbugs conduct lightning, we know they do (as per Toy Box "assume it makes sense") and now via Naturalism have extrapolated an interesting creature that piggy backs off of those abilities.

Instead of taking the fantastical and using Naturalism to hone back, witling away the fun and vibrancy, instead we can use Naturalism to extrapolate forward, building off of impossible premises to tell whole new kinds of stories. It can even prompt silly questions as you build out the world like do Wyverians lay eggs? (Questions which at any time you can simply make a ruling on and say "assume it makes sense.")

I've been playing a lot of Final Fantasy 7 lately, and the way it handles the lifestream and fiends resonates quite fiercely with this. The Lifestream is essentially the heart of the planet's life force and the source of all magic (huh? But how does the planet manifest the magic doesn't that have implications on physics? Assume it makes sense), from which you can make little magic crystals (materia) to cast magic with (wait why can't I just go to a mako geyser and cast magic? Also how does the materia know the spell I want to cast? Also why do I need MP to cast it? Assume it makes sense - Bits of this were further extrapolated in later entries, but emphasis on extrapolated and bits - Calling Materia "an artificial crystal that contains the wisdom of the ancients" answers literally nothing). [*4]

FF7 is far more concerned with the aesthetics and allegory of its mako reactors (large industrial machines meant to pull the magic and power out of the earth to convert into electricity and materia), than explaining the actual science of what happens in those reactors (despite the fact that many characters insist the process is scientific). Because that explanation frankly doesn't matter for the story and world to be compelling and immersive in my eyes. What's far more interesting is the Lifestream->Mako->Materia pipeline, the consequences of that extraction and how mako poisoning is part of what creates both military personnel and the fiends you fight through your journey. It's great and stylish stuff that never feels like it gets too bogged down. All of it's working from a central fantastical conceit (that the planet is alive and the lifestream is magical) and thus feels deeply consistent and interconnected even if it's not 100% logical or realistic to how events may transpire. 

It's that sense of consistency and interconnectivity that naturalism brings to Toy Box Creativity, enhancing the best elements of both to shine - Creating inspiring, evocative works with enough verisimilitude to get lost in and enough fearlessness to endlessly surprise you. 

(Render of Midgar from Final Fantasy: 7 Remake)

Side Note on OC Culture

So I wanted to talk about Toy Box Creativity (and by extension Toy Box Naturalism) in the context of one particular style that I think it'd grind particularly hard against: OC Play. For those unfamiliar, OC Play essentially involves someone painstakingly writing and investing in a character before and outside of a campaign with the intention of bringing this OC into the game world and telling their OC's story through the course of play. While not always inflexible, there's expectations this playstyle comes with. It's where you get a lot of "how are you going to tie in my characters back story?"s or "oh I know how my character's story will end"s - It's playlists and OC art and the constant working on the PC as a narrative character rather than an experiential avatar. It's all very modern 5e. Not that it's terrible or anything, but it's certainly not for me and more often than not deprioritizes the aspects of surprise that can emerge from a tabletop game. It's tolerable, but definitely grinds against the kinds of play I enjoy on both sides of the GM screen.

As a result I have a little pet theory that Toy Box Creativity is antithetical to, if not outright incompatible with, OC Play. If you have a player who's constantly thinking about their backstory and their characters next moves, randomly throwing in dinosaurs and ray guns and simply say "assume it makes sense" or "that's just how it is", they very understandably might be distressed where a more experiential/Princess Play focused play might excitedly roll with the punches. After all this has lore implications. So I think with a Toy Box styled game, you definitely need to be up front with players that that's how things are and it's not necessarily going to be the place for them to bring a prewritten story instead of one that emerges moment to moment by just rolling with the vibes and taking things from there.

This of course doesn't preclude characterful moments, or blorbos in general (in fact a Princess Played Blorbo is the perfect fit for a Toy Box Naturalist game). It just means everyone needs to be on the same page in regards to flexibility and how the world operates. This is why having a GM can be such a powerful tool, especially for a Toy Box game. Instead of getting bogged down asking "why haven't we heard of dinosaurs up until now?" you can ask (and generate new moments via) questions like "were there dinosaurs on my island?" or "how many people know about dinosaurs?"

Closing Notes 

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that people shouldn't make art unless they have something to say. I see art as a kind of sublime communication with which to impart feelings, values and viewpoints. Sometimes that message is something as simple as "Dinosaurs are cool" and thus you throw in dinosaurs along with your cool robots. Hell Forza is built on "cars are cool" and it's great for it. Sometimes that message comes from a mind that thinks it has the world entirely figured, and thus can figure their own high-detailed subjectively "realistic" fictional world because that's the only kind of fiction that will resonate with them. 

But sometimes that message (as in Monster Hunter) is somewhere along the lines of appreciating the beauty of nature and the impermanence of humanity. Big enough to be high concept, experiential enough to want detail. An amped up mono no aware, if you will. And while we certainly don't need any degree of naturalism to talk about those things, the lens of naturalism can shine a light on the fragility and beautiful interconnectedness of ecosystems, as well as our potential place in it. (Heck that's pretty much what I did in my old On Monsters and Hunting post ~)

I don't think its any mistake that the examples I brought up (Monster Hunter and Final Fantasy 7) have deeply eco-conscious messages while applying Toy Box Naturalism. After all, it takes a naturalistic scientific eye to understand why our ecosystems are in danger. But it takes childlike wonder to truly appreciate and experience all of nature's magical beauty without trying to taxonomize it behind a glass case.

BONUS ROUND - Capsule Example

So I'm adding this based off a very good question a friend of the blog asked that went a little something like this: What happens when you have a player with a legitimate (e.g. tactical) interest in how a specific toybox element just works, a plausible in-character reason to know why it works and/or an immediate objective that could reasonably be accomplished by leveraging how the thing works?

And to me the key is talking about explaining basics and questions. We're going to use Toriyama's Capsules (which I'm actually fairly unfamiliar with, so forgive my creative liberties here) as an example cause they fit well here. First when we introduce Capsules, somewhere there should be written or verbal reference to the following:

• The basics of what it is and how it's use: Capsules are small handheld devices with a plug on the top. If the plug is pushed the capsule erupts in a puff of smoke and a much larger item will appears (common items include cars and even houses). Best to stand back while the internal item is expanding!
• The basics of how its made or where it's from: Capsules are made in specialized facilities, the bigger the facility the bigger the items you can Capsule. Capsuling is a process that takes roughly 1 hour per square foot of Capsuled material, and pulls a lot of power. Capsule Corp. currently has a corner on the Capsule market as their methods are by far the most energy and time efficient (and they were the first on the scene, thus having the most pre-existing infrastructure to Capsule items). 
• The core limitations: You can only Capsule an item in a Capsule Facility, and the item must fit on the Capsuling platform. Capsules are highly durable and can withstand about as much as a ball of steel could. However, if the Capsule is broken, the item inside becomes similarly damaged and the Capsule will need to be repaired to extract the item. When an item is expanding from a Capsule, if it has no room the item will simply break and collide against whatever is crowding around it. Organic matter is preserved indefinitely inside of capsules, however placing anything living will induce a coma and is know to cause severe brain damage.

You'll notice there's a LOT of whys and hows that get glossed over in there. As per Toy Box Naturalism I never actually answer how Capsule tech is able to shrink stuff down, just the basics of its limitations and some ideas of what the process looks like to a non-expert. However what we have here is deeply gameable information. From here Players can ask questions or inquire about potential ideas, but we can always fall back to "Capsules simply work like this." It's enough information to not be totally dismissive and for players to interact/get creative with it, but sparse enough that we're not having to get into the science or potential radical implications of said sciences.

If a Player wanted to create a nuke because they think Capsules expanding must have to do with particle manipulation so opening two capsules next to each other would create a a huge detonation, you're allowed to simply say "Nah, Capsules don't work like that" and then simply explain what would happen if they did open two capsules next to each other ((the items would physically collide, as if thrown at each other, as they expanded, but not much else happens)). If the player needs a nitty gritty science answer then a Toy Box Naturalist game will simply never be for them.

A favorite thing I'll do if a Player asks how the actual nitty gritty science of a device works (esp one that is intended to just be interesting gameable toy box creativity) is telling them simply that "Oh this NPC in the world could actually explain the science behind this better than me, but I can tell you the limitations of the thing and if your idea will work." Because it implies "yeah there is an answer and someone knows it which is why they're a scientist and it's as uneventful here as explaining to you the full formula for gravitational pull. What's important for us at the table to discuss (in Toy Box Naturalism) are the general effects of gravity, not the formula itself or exact mass of the planet itself.

Because the above bullet points are all you really need for Capsules to be gameable and consistent within your world. If your player isn't satisfied with not knowing every formula and scientific detail it's probably because they either a) just don't enjoy this style of setting or b) have an idea that they're unsure would work and that they should absolutely ask about but are choosing not to ((which can be remedied by them just asking)). But likewise they should be prepared for the GM to simply tell them the idea wouldn't work because the technology operates on a different logic than they're applying. Toy Box Naturalism isn't about handwaving all explanations, it's about handwaving a certain brand of explanations and logic, in favor of things that you find creatively stylish or exciting, like Capsules!

[*1 : OK so why realism in air-quotes? Simply put most times I hear people cry fowl about "realism" or "historically it would've happened like this" or "clearly if people have access to X then Y is sure to follow" I frankly roll my eyes and feel like it's bullshit. People used to claim with the same ferocity that germ theory didn't make sense, and that miasmas were clearly what caused illness. Ideas of "realism" or adherence to any one view of sociology, anthropology or psychology as a means to extrapolate what "should" happen in a fictional situation is like saying you can cook the same stir fry twice, especially for tabletop games. Most applications of "realism" are mind-numbingly debatable in a way that simply doesn't interest me nearly as much as hearing what the author thinks, feels and imagines. Fiction is not tied down by reality, and much like anxiety is a waste of the human imagination, so too does focusing on one's own narrow scope of "realism" feel unnecessarily limiting - With some exceptions ~ Hence Toy Box Naturalism.]

[*2 : I want to emphasize that I think all of these holes are fine, but it's the kind of stuff I hear people nitpick about all the time about this work and others, and UGH it's just eye-bleeding - But to give you an idea: The population density/growth of humanity/its distribution doesn't make sense. The ability to craft bullets on the fly implies highly advanced technology and the heavy militarization of every community would imply war "should" be an inevitable thing ((lord forbid any communities understand the value of cooperation - Nitpicks like this are always telling because it implies the nitpicker thinks humanity is always doomed to its worst impulses which I simply don't agree is a foregone conclusion especially in a fictional setting). The Frenzy Virus should kill Wyverians if it can kill monsters because it's established they share a lot of DNA, it should also be way more contagious. Why haven't humans reverse engineered the precursor tech after thousands of years of not only maintaining them, but building new weapons. I'm sure someone out there thinks it doesn't make sense for the advanced precursor civilization to be wiped out, etc etc - If these kinds of questions get in the way of you enjoying Monster Hunter and its lore, I honestly pity you because the world must be a bland miserable place to live in and I hope the spark of imagination one day finds you.]

[*3 : I currently have a stomach bug and can't cook or eat all the yummy food I want to so that's probably why there's a heavy food theme today.]

[*4 : My editing brain said this was off topic but shout outs to Final Fantasy for being so Toy Box Creative that they straight up have Gilgamesh but instead of using that allusion to recreate the ancient hero he's just goofy kabuki guy with tons of swords on a grand journey - This kind of decontextualization is cool for reasons I can't explain here, but shits great and every time he shows up it's a treat.]

[*5 : So Gygaxian Naturalism. The "Stat Everything and let the mechanics tell the story of the ecosystem" thing is actually pretty damn cool and I'm not necessarily against it. However when I think about Gygaxian Naturalism I associate it with a certain degree of obsession over answers, there's never room for "it just happens." - Toy Box Naturalism instead allows you to say stuff like "Yeah uhhh there's a monster that's part volcano now, deal" and still have enough naturalism that something like that can make sense. I'm still mulling where I'd draw the line, but I keep thinking about how the aforementioned article name drops 3e, and yeah that doesn't feel super Toy Boxy to me... But maybe this distinction is a vapid one and I'm just talking about Gygaxian Naturalism!]