Does WotC actually have a bunch of mathematician types working on D&D?
This was raised in a previous post:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=382276&postcount=237
Let's examine the background of the known names working on 4E D&D.
Rob Heinsoo - anthropology (Reed College)
http://library.reed.edu/instruction/anthropology/seminar/theses.html
Logan Bonner - painting, English composition (Fort Hays State U.)
http://www.keystonegallery.com/logan/writingsamples/Logan_Bonner-Resume.pdf
Matt Sernett - English, writing (Syracuse U.)
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/matt-sernett/4/3ab/1bb
James Wyatt - religion (Oberlin College)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wyatt_%28game_designer%29
Richard Baker - English (Virgina Tech)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Baker_%28game_designer%29
Bruce Cordell - biology (U. of Colorado at Boulder)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Cordell
Bill Slavicsek - journalism (St. John U.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Slavicsek
Mike Mearls - geography (Dartmouth)
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mike-mearls/2/894/381
Ari Marmell - writing (U. of Houston)
http://mouseferatu.com/index.php/about/
Chris Sims - writing, graphic design (Virginia Commonwealth U.)
http://www.linkedin.com/in/chrisssims
Stephen Schubert - ? (previously a programmer at IBM)
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/20090319
Andy Collins - ?
Christopher Perkins - ?
Rodney Thompson - ?
Jeremy Crawford - ?
Overall, not exactly a crowd with a hardcore mathematics type background. Definitely not an MIT or Caltech type crowd.
You don't need to be a science major to take a stat course.
Quote from: Peregrin;382458You don't need to be a science major to take a stat course.
True, assuming it is one of those stat courses which doesn't require any calculus.
Quote from: ggroy;382460True, assuming it is one of those stat courses which doesn't require any calculus.
Even introductory discrete math (the one that does -- comp sci majors take this) doesn't use very much heavy calculus for the most part.
It's mostly just applying laws and solving logical problems, with a few applied higher concepts. You can solve most of the problems without applying any calc-heavy math at all, if you understand the logic behind how to solve the problems.
Probabilities can be tricky for people not used to dealing with them (there are lots of logical traps you can fall into), but they're by no means hard.
Quote from: Peregrin;382461It's mostly just applying laws and solving logical problems, with a few applied higher concepts.
Some results in basic stats courses are just quoted without proof, judging by the textbooks used for such courses.
Though I don't have much first hand experiences with such courses. The only statistics courses I ever took in university was one on mathematical statistics, which required several rigorous calculus courses (ie. where they prove the theorems) as prerequisites. Overall it was a largely useless course, other than going through the proofs of various theorems and results in common use in probability and statistics.
Quote from: Peregrin;382461Probabilities can be tricky for people not used to dealing with them (there are lots of logical traps you can fall into), but they're by no means hard.
In practice, yes.
Back when I was in university, I sorta weaseled my way out of having taking such courses on basic applied probability. The first part of that mathematical statistics course I took, was mostly cranking out the basic theorems and results in probability theory. It didn't really cover the applied probability type problems, common in introductory stats courses.
In hindsight, a course on basic applied probability would have been more useful than a mathematical statistics course proving tons of theorems.
James Wyatt trained as a minister, and any time he is allowed to talk about good and evil and shit, it all comes through. He's as bad as Justin Achilli about belching Christianity into places it doesn't belong. The Book of Exalted Deeds was terrible and in no small part because James Wyatt kept slapping crap in here and there about how "godly" was "good" and "ungodly" was "evil." Which makes about zero sense in D&D's polytheistic great wheel cosmology.
James Wyatt isn't just incapable of making a mathematical model that holds together with three or more variables, he can't even get his religious biases out of the way long enough to write a fictional moral paradigm for another culture. At least Rob Heinsoo can do that.
-Frank
Hey I read Anthropology and Geography and I can totally handle a bit of integrated calculus (of course I was educated in England :D) and at Uni when my girlfriend was struggling with a medical stats course I just read the text book and taught her how to pass the exam.
You can master probabilities from a text book in a couple of days. You can even get programmes that handle it all for you.
You would have thought that the largest RPG company in the world would be able to splash out a few dollars on a probability engine that the designers can just chuck a few numbers into.
I mean its not Rocket Science :)
Hmm... this shows why I like Mearls and Cordell the most. Now go back and tell us the backgrounds of D&D creators.
Quote from: ggroy;382451Does WotC actually have a bunch of mathematician types working on D&D?
I can't see how this is relevant to anything.
Greg Stafford is not a mathematician. Sandy Petersen is not a mathematician. Ricard Ibañez is not a mathematician. Gary Gygax was a shoemaker. Many great game designers were not statistic experts, and no one gives a fuck.
Quote from: FrankTrollman;382468James Wyatt isn't just incapable of making a mathematical model that holds together with three or more variables, he can't even get his religious biases out of the way long enough to write a fictional moral paradigm for another culture. At least Rob Heinsoo can do that.
-Frank
I don't have anything personal against you, but seriously, I can't remember seeing a post by you saying something positive about anything.
Quote from: mhensley;382485Hmm... this shows why I like Mearls and Cordell the most. Now go back and tell us the backgrounds of D&D creators.
Yeah, let's hear for that. And again, let's see how that disqualifies people like Greg Stafford.
Quote from: Peregrin;382458You don't need to be a science major to take a stat course.
No kidding. I have a business degree, but managed to take four years' worth of stats courses and two years of math (calculus).
It's nice to see a spread of interests, I suppose. Though unsurprisingly writing seems to be the most common. Given that they're professional writers.
Just to fill in one more of the blanks - Andy Collins has a degree in English (Stanford). No maths here either.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Cooking.pdf (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/Cooking.pdf)
It's relevant because 4e is highly math and statistics dependent. Which means they need someone (Or two) to crunch the numbers.
Quote from: Imperator;382493I can't see how this is relevant to anything.
This was attempting to answer a point raised by Garnfellow in the following post:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=382276&postcount=237
(As to whether Garnfellow was just being sarcastic, I don't know).
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;382500It's relevant because 4e is highly math and statistics dependent. Which means they need someone (Or two) to crunch the numbers.
No they don't they need a $10 computer programme that can act as a probability engine. Of all areas of Maths probability and statistics are the best suited to computerisation.
Sites like http://www.fnordistan.com/smallroller.html
or
http://wareseeker.com/free-roll-dice-probability/
or just type "Dice based probability programmes" in google ....
Quote from: jibbajibba;382505No they don't they need a $10 computer programme that can act as a probability engine. Of all areas of Maths probability and statistics are the best suited to computerisation.
Sites like http://www.fnordistan.com/smallroller.html
or
http://wareseeker.com/free-roll-dice-probability/
or just type "Dice based probability programmes" in google ....
Right. And we don't need mathematicians because we have calculators. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Imperator;382493Gary Gygax was a shoemaker. Many great game designers were not statistic experts
Another of Gygax's early jobs was being an insurance actuary. At GaryCon, his friend Flint Dille was saying that he thought that the things this work involves - quantifying the key variables that relate to the probability that an individual will die within a certain time period - had a lot to do with D&D's design.
I think this might not be a causal relationship - I don't know that the idea of character attributes can be credited to Gygax instead of Arneson or the common wargaming lingua franca, for one thing - but it's interesting to think that the same turn of mind would make you interested in the probabilities of insurance and gaming.
Quote from: Peregrin;382458You don't need to be a science major to take a stat course.
Studying Geography in France does include Statististics courses.
Quote from: Imperator;382493Greg Stafford is not a mathematician. Sandy Petersen is not a mathematician. Ricard Ibañez is not a mathematician. Gary Gygax was a shoemaker. Many great game designers were not statistic experts, and no one gives a fuck.
Agreed. I think having mathematicians design a role playing game wouldn't necessarily be such a good thing, from my POV.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;382512Right. And we don't need mathematicians because we have calculators. :rolleyes:
No you don't need mathematiciains to do stats analysis period you need mathematiciains to work on Number theory, set theory and advanced n-dimentional trig. My A-level maths teacher even refused to teach statistics because it was so far divorced from mathematics (mind you he was a bit of an elitist having studied Pure Mathematics and Philosophy at Lincoln College).
You are desiging a roleplaying game you just need to know that if I require a series of 4 successes each one with a chance of 65% to climb this wall what is my chance of climbing this wall... and similar such comundrums. For that you just need a probability engine and some smarts.
Calulators help with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and so on they don't really help much with maths which is why you are allowed to take then into maths exams :rolleyes: :)
Quote from: mhensley;382485Now go back and tell us the backgrounds of D&D creators.
- D&D
Gary Gygax - anthropology (U. of Chicago) (did not finish degree)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Gygax
Dave Arneson - history (U. of Minnesota)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Arneson
- Runequest
Steve Perrin - English (San Francisco State U.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Perrin
Greg Stafford - ? (Beloit College)
http://www.weareallus.com/biography/eventsofmylife.html
- Call of Cthulhu
Sandy Petersen - zoology (U. of California at Berkeley)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Petersen
- GURPS
Steve Jackson - ? (Rice U.), law school
http://www.io.com/~sj/sjbio.html
The only bona fide mathematician I could find offhand was Richard Garfield, who designed Magic: The Gathering.
He has PhD in mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garfield
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Quote from: ggroy;382503This was attempting to answer a point raised by Garnfellow in the following post:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=382276&postcount=237
(As to whether Garnfellow was just being sarcastic, I don't know).
I was actually being sarcastic -- based on the 4e hype, one would have expected their design team to be composed almost entirely of mathematicians, engineers, and scientists. (I'm pretty sure the Magic side of WotC design has historically had mathematicians on staff.)
That said, this is a pretty interesting thread. It seems RPG design has largely been a liberal arts pursuit, which is interesting because so many RPG players seem to have science or engineering backgrounds.
Quote from: ggroy;382535The only bona fide mathematician I could find offhand was Richard Garfield, who designed Magic: The Gathering.
He has PhD in mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garfield
And ironically magic was full of statistical errors largely because Garfield never imagined people would by booster packs by the box so he relied on rarity being a limiter. Mind you even without it the triads proved very very broken (white = 3 life, red = 3 damage, green = +3/+3 on a creature, black = 3 Mana and Blue = 3 cards ) elegant and of course wrong :)
Quote from: Benoist;382530Agreed. I think having mathematicians design a role playing game wouldn't necessarily be such a good thing, from my POV.
It will probably end up looking like Rolemaster. :D
Quote from: Benoist;382528Studying Geography in France does include Statististics courses.
It can be the same here in the US, though it's not a requirement in all programs. With a concentration in Environmental Analysis, stats was a part of my core curriculum, and my senior project was performing geostatistical analyses of well-water pollutants and integrating them with geographic information systems; I also did some work on a professor's rain forest data from Borneo.
Sad to have to claim Mike Mearls as one of my own, however . . . :p
Statistics is not necessarily at all. Statistics is making educated guesses about unknown variables based on experiments. For an RPG one usually knows all variables involved.
It might help to know a little bit about probability theory, but were I come from you learn enough of that in high school. Probability theory at university level is mostly measure theory, most of which is not worth thinking about when it comes to dice (i.e. discrete probablity distributions).
And no, my games hardly look like role-master. You know, mathmaticians hate numbers, tabels and calculating.
Quote from: 1of3;382556It might help to know a little bit about probability theory, but were I come from you learn enough of that in high school. Probability theory at university level is mostly measure theory, most of which is not worth thinking about when it comes to dice (i.e. discrete probablity distributions).
They don't really cover measure theory at the undergraduate level in university here, other than as an optional course in senior year. But measure theory is usually done in pure mathematics PhD programs here.
I didn't bother going further in pure math after undergrad. Too much demand on my time for too little in return, at the time. Years later I only ever pulled out my measure theory books, was when I was trying to figure out how to prove the strong law of large numbers.
Not being highly and appropriately qualified doesn't exclude you from writing or being involved with games. The only prick who bandied his doctorate qualification is Ron Edwards.
I am trying to apply the logic of this to other games besides 4E and I think that the last thing you want is an expert in a non-gaming field to write material for a RPG. For example, Constantine Thomas (a degreed Planetary Scientist) used to write for GURPS:Traveller, GURPS: Transhuman Space, and often commented on Traveller related science subjects in various forums. The man is obviously an expert in the field of his degree, however when it comes to science fiction he often refused to consider the fiction half and instead concentrated on the science half to the exclusion of all else. This had the consequence of sucking the fun right out of the material, which is horribly bad for a game (even though it would be great for a college course).
I think it would be best to have a knowledgeable hobbyist to write for a RPG while having an expert in the field on hand for specific questions instead of having an expert in a field write the RPG. This is more art than science, and close enough is often what needs to be achieved for accuracy.
Quote from: jibbajibba;382533No you don't need mathematiciains to do stats analysis period you need mathematiciains to work on Number theory, set theory and advanced n-dimentional trig. My A-level maths teacher even refused to teach statistics because it was so far divorced from mathematics (mind you he was a bit of an elitist having studied Pure Mathematics and Philosophy at Lincoln College).
You are desiging a roleplaying game you just need to know that if I require a series of 4 successes each one with a chance of 65% to climb this wall what is my chance of climbing this wall... and similar such comundrums. For that you just need a probability engine and some smarts.
Calulators help with addition, subtraction, multiplication, and so on they don't really help much with maths which is why you are allowed to take then into maths exams :rolleyes: :)
My point is, probability calculators can calculate probabilities - But they don't tell you what probabilities would work well. They don't tell you how to arrange the probabilities so they mesh well; they don't tell you about synergies or (What's the opposite?) between different probabilities in the rules-set.
They don't tell you how to design a monster creation system - An absolute necessity for a game like 4e.
For a numbers-focused RPG like 4e, there has to be someone who knows how to do things like that.
what we need is a degree in tabletop game design with a specialism in RPGs :)
Creative writing
Anthropology
History
Probability
Game theory
Art appreciation
Martial Arts
Religion
Drama
And of course each year for one course you just play games.
(actually I have done most of these that is basically my CV....)
Don't forget a business degree - It would keep the financial "Oopsees" down. :D
Quote from: jeff37923;382572I am trying to apply the logic of this to other games besides 4E and I think that the last thing you want is an expert in a non-gaming field to write material for a RPG.
Yep. One of the guys who writes Ars Magica books is a qualified expert on medieval society. His books stink as RPG play aids.
I agree that anyone with any degree or none whatsoever can write an RPG, but experience with stats and math sure does sound useful when designing a crunchified, number-oriented game like 4e. On the other hand, I am disturbed by the number of English degrees listed. Speaking as a guy with a bachelor's in English and aspirations to grad school, I think you can get pretty far in many English programs without learning a damned thing. Note that I don't think that gives me any grounds for casting specific aspersions on the fellows in question. Unless someone at WotC made a specific claimed like "We hired Mr. X for his statistical rigor", this is a non-issue.
Quote from: jrients;382654On the other hand, I am disturbed by the number of English degrees listed. Speaking as a guy with a bachelor's in English and aspirations to grad school, I think you can get pretty far in many English programs without learning a damned thing.
My friends who majored in psychology mention the exact same thing. For the first two-and-a-half to three years of a undergraduate psychology degree program, almost all of the exams were scantron multiple-guess with no essays.
Quote from: ggroy;382657My friends who majored in psychology mention the exact same thing. For the first two-and-a-half to three years of a undergraduate psychology degree program, almost all of the exams were scantron multiple-guess with no essays.
Well, that's pretty effin' scary. I was more thinking along the lines of the 'give the prof his own opinions back to him and score a solid B' strategy.
Quote from: jrients;382658Well, that's pretty effin' scary. I was more thinking along the lines of the 'give the prof his own opinions back to him and score a solid B' strategy.
In France the "giving back the prof his own opinions" thing is going on across the board, up to and well beyond Licenses and Masters. Actually, up to Licenses and Masters in fields like say History or Law it's a matter of just spitting back the course on the page. Beyond these levels, it's a matter of kissing the right ass, sucking the right dick, and nodding knowingly to your elders when asked.
Quote from: jrients;382658Well, that's pretty effin' scary.
The creepy part is that this is common practice, even at the top highly ranked universities (both ivies and non-ivies).
Quote from: Benoist;382659In France the "giving back the prof his own opinions" thing is going on across the board, up to and well beyond Licenses and Masters. Actually, up to Licenses and Masters in fields like say History or Law it's a matter of just spitting back the course on the page. Beyond these levels, it's a matter of kissing the right ass, sucking the right dick, and nodding knowingly to your elders when asked.
Back when I was in university, it was called "regurgitation". :banghead:
Quote from: Benoist;382659Actually, up to Licenses and Masters in fields like say History or Law it's a matter of just spitting back the course on the page.
This sort of "dumbing down" isn't only just happening in the arts and social sciences. It's also been happening simultaneously in the engineering and hard sciences undergraduate programs over the last 30+ years, albeit in a slightly different manner.
Undergraduate engineering programs just about everywhere in America, are somewhat easier today compared to 20+ years ago.
To top it off, the undergraduate math courses and degree programs at many top universities have been dumbed down somewhat, from what it was 20+ years ago.
Quote from: ggroy;382657My friends who majored in psychology mention the exact same thing. For the first two-and-a-half to three years of a undergraduate psychology degree program, almost all of the exams were scantron multiple-guess with no essays.
One of my tutors (Geography) did an exchange programme and spent a sumester at a US university and he got told off for setting too many essays and then giving people 55% (which is a very solid 2:2 over here). Funny.
We were writing essays in exams when we were 13.
Quote from: jibbajibba;382671One of my tutors (Geography) did an exchange programme and spent a sumester at a US university and he got told off for setting too many essays and then giving people 55% (which is a very solid 2:2 over here). Funny.
We were writing essays in exams when we were 13.
Judging by your sig and previous posts, you must have went through the system when they still had O-levels?
My friends who went through the British system, mentioned the education standards there nosedived significantly after the O-levels were discontinued and replaced with something else that was watered down.
Quote from: ggroy;382674Judging by your sig and previous posts, you must have went through the system when they still had O-levels?
My friends who went through the British system, mentioned the education standards there nosedived significantly after the O-levels were discontinued and replaced with something else that was watered down.
Yup. O'levels were elitist and only 30% of kids sat them the rest took CSEs which were simpler with more multi-choice. So they simplifed the system and turned all the exams in to GCSEs which were CSEs with the numbers filed off. My little sister was the first year of them and her and all her mates got 10 As in fact so many bright kids got A's that they had to introduce a new grade A*. Prior to GCSEs the national average was 1 CSE grade 3 now 70% of kids get 5 GCSEs at a C+ grade. The easiest way to improve the normalisation of a system is to move the average down 20% :)
My town still has grammar schools (removed as elistist most everwhere else) when you take an exam when you are 10 and only the top 12% get in. So whilst the avertge was 1 CSE grade 3 our average was 8 o'levels (I have 11). Anyway to sum up this totally off-topic meander through the English education system. The system was unfair and a lot of poorer inner-city kids were disadvantaged, university take up levels were at about 17% and the top handful of universities were 80%+ occupied by private school kids. They had to do something but their move to fairness meant dropping academic rigor in favour of more interpretive data analysis. Now 50% of kids go to university but the number of people that can quote Virgil really has dropped.
Lastly ... when i was teaching A level Geogrpahy at a girls grammar school ('95) out of my 54 students 28 got an A grade. In the mock exam I had set and marked I gave 8 of them A grades. So yeah I guess standards keep on slipping.
Quote from: jibbajibba;382679They had to do something but their move to fairness meant dropping academic rigor in favour of more interpretive data analysis. Now 50% of kids go to university but the number of people that can quote Virgil really has dropped.
Lastly ... when i was teaching A level Geogrpahy at a girls grammar school ('95) out of my 54 students 28 got an A grade. In the mock exam I had set and marked I gave 8 of them A grades. So yeah I guess standards keep on slipping.
Several of my former colleagues mentioned that what they cover in undergrad freshman year in engineering and the hard sciences at places like Cambridge and Oxford these days, is almost like "remedial" courses. Basically stuff which would have been done in the O-levels 20+ years ago, they have to spend more and more time reviewing.
They're frustrated that they have to teach students which are not very well prepared, even at Cambridge or Oxford.
What's fair is the same standard for everyone. What's best is not treating people like idiots. What's their choice is whether they treat themselves like idiots.
Also, the truth will set you free - But the truth is often not pleasant. It doesn't have to be. Opinions matter not one whit.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;382689What's fair is the same standard for everyone. What's best is not treating people like idiots. What's their choice is whether they treat themselves like idiots.
Also, the truth will set you free - But the truth is often not pleasant. It doesn't have to be. Opinions matter not one whit.
Yeah but If I set a fair exam that only 2% of the population can pass what does that prove except to promote elitism.
All Souls just cancelled their famous one word exam after 150 odd years because they found that it didn't actually mean anything except to create an Uber-Uber-Elite from the uber-elite they already had.
A fair one (IMO :D ) would be one they have a reasonable chance of passing if they put real effort in.
Quote from: jeff37923;382572I am trying to apply the logic of this to other games besides 4E and I think that the last thing you want is an expert in a non-gaming field to write material for a RPG. For example, Constantine Thomas (a degreed Planetary Scientist) used to write for GURPS:Traveller, GURPS: Transhuman Space, and often commented on Traveller related science subjects in various forums. The man is obviously an expert in the field of his degree, however when it comes to science fiction he often refused to consider the fiction half and instead concentrated on the science half to the exclusion of all else. This had the consequence of sucking the fun right out of the material, which is horribly bad for a game (even though it would be great for a college course).
Well he also sucked out all true and open-minded scientific approaches out of it. Also, total disregard for the humanities. Not contempt, but utter lack of consideration. If I ever met a science-and-only-science-nerd, it would be the fine EDG.
I would think that designing an RPG requires an understanding of resource management, emergent properties, human behavior, and how ideas are communicated. And out of all the disciplines with well known degrees out there, I would think Economics, Biology, Psychology, and Communications (perhaps Acting?) are the most important in those regards.
Neither Mathematics nor English would have helped you design Chess or Go. It would have helped with Poker, but that game consists of nothing BUT statistics and bluffing. Every discipline provides a different set of viewpoints in which to base a game on.
Quote from: jibbajibba;382693Yeah but If I set a fair exam that only 2% of the population can pass what does that prove except to promote elitism.
No, see, that's the entire problem with modern civilization: it has NO fucking understanding of the difference between "elitism" and "meritocracy". When you stop rewarding and encouraging merit, it should come as no fucking surprise to anyone that you will stop producing it. Civilization will fall, and the Chinese will eat us alive.
RPGPundit
Anyways, clearly the best degree for a game designer to have is History.
RPGPundit
I would think that if you brought a bunch of mathematicians to bear in writing an RPG, you'd end up with a game that is as much fun as a mathematics book. That is not to say that having an expert in the wings to check your maths is a poor idea, I would certainly approve of such thoroughness.
When it comes to actually writing the book itself though, shouldn't writers and designers take a cue from the field of journalism? It is a discipline that trains writers to capture information and clarity in as few words as possible.
I can read and enjoy Gygax for some reason (personal bias, I assume), but that doesn't mean I want all of my RPGs to be verbose.
*Raise thread*
OK for 4e they probably only needed a mathematician. IMHO it really seemed that 4e was desperately missing a biologist of some stripe (or passable facsimile) - then there wouldn't have been Dragonboobs.
Also, Gygaxian Naturalism is cool.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;385881Also, Gygaxian Naturalism is cool.
Gygaxian Naturalism (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html) for people unfamiliar with Grognardia.
Quote from: Benoist;385886Gygaxian Naturalism (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html) for people unfamiliar with Grognardia.
Wow. I didn't know we needed a term for "designing a fucking setting the right way".
RPGpundit
If I was designing my own setting to be a published product, Gygaxian naturalism would make sense to do (by James Maliszewski's definition).
For my own games, this sort of information I wouldn't bother writing down. It would be something that would be taken into consideration for constructing combat encounters, and how a particular area on a hex grid could look like.