Tuesday, January 21, 2025

REPOST: The Articles of Dragon: "The Ecology of the Piercer"

When issue #72 of Dragon (April 1983) was released, it contained, in addition to the usual assortment of not particularly funny April Fool's articles, a very short article – one page of text plus a one-page illustration – called "The Ecology of the Piercer." Written by Chris Elliott and Richard Edwards, it had originally appeared in the pages of the UK fanzine Dragonlords. That in itself is pretty remarkable, as I cannot recall another Dragon article that was in fact a reprint of something that had appeared elsewhere (though I'm sure my readers will quickly point out many examples that falsify my memories). More remarkable, I think, is how modest an article "The Ecology of the Piercer" is and yet, it was the acorn from which a mighty oak would eventually grow.

The idea of monster ecology articles is now so well entrenched in the minds of long-time D&D players that it's almost unnecessary to discuss the actual contents of this seminal article. More to the point, "The Ecology of the Piercer" is, as I just noted, a very short article, written in the form of an address given by the wizard Pyrex to the Wizards Guild of Kabring, where he discusses the physiology and habits of the piercer. There are no game stats included with the article; instead it focuses on trying to make sense of one of the game's more bizarre creations. This the authors do by postulating that the piercer is a mollusk using a stalactite as protective covering/weapon in much the same way that a hermit crab does with seashells. It's a pretty simple idea but a clever one that goes a long way to lending plausibility to what would otherwise be just a goofy monster.

The response to "The Ecology of the Piercer" was very positive, so much so that nearly every issue of Dragon  that followed it for many years included an "Ecology of ..." article in its pages. These articles were foundational to the Silver Age, being sophisticated (or decadent, depending on one's point of view) outgrowths of Gygaxian naturalism. I think it worth noting, too, that the origin of this series was in the UK, where RuneQuest rivaled and may have even exceeded Dungeons & Dragons in popularity. Among RQ's many virtues was its dedication to creating and presenting fantastically plausible monsters, with 1982's Trollpak probably being the epitome of the genre. I suspect that Trollpak had an influence on "The Ecology of the Piercer," as evidenced by the illustration that accompanied the article. It showed a dissected piercer that reminded me, even then, of the famous illustration of a troll's innards I've discussed previously.

I liked the early "The Ecology of ..." articles more than the later ones, mostly because they were short and focused more on explaining away goofiness in a reasonable manner than in providing the definitive portrait of a particular monster's nature. They were thus much more easily "plug and play" than what came later, which increasingly seemed to rely on very specific presentations of iconic monsters, often to the point where those portrayals became canonical at the expense of earlier alternatives. But then that was one of the characteristics of the Silver Age and, judging from the popularity of these articles, it fed a real hunger many gamers – or at least Dragon readers – had.

18 comments:

  1. I had the feeling the original article was tongue in cheek satire, that was missed in the republication to Dragon magazine and subsequent expansion into a long series of Ecology articles?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're almost certainly correct.

      Delete
    2. Agreed. It was pretty obviously poking fun at a very silly monster concept, only to be taken seriously by people who can't grok dry humor. Makes me wonder what the same folks thought of Bob Newhart. Was it a medical drama to them?

      Delete
    3. Just because some folks dont smile or laugh at dry humor; does not mean they dont understand it as such. Maybe; some people liked the idea of fantastical ecology ? I did not speak english as a first language; so maybe i missed the part that was supposed to be clever and funny

      Delete
    4. Totally, don't mind either way - I like the humorous meta-articles but also like the ecologies that were published also. :-) When I had to write up a Piercer type creature for the third Advanced Fighting Fantasy bestiary ('Return to the Pit'), which was based on the occurrence of canon-lore Mimic Stalactites from Warlock magazine issue #11 and FF49 Siege of Sardath, I included a nod to this original article by implying such creatures could be small elemental earth spirits or they could be some kind of weird subterranean mollusc derivative. :-)

      Delete
  2. I never had a subscription to Dragon and cannot recall how I ever came into possession of this issue and article. But I did.

    I thought it was stupid at the time. But then, maybe two years went by, and I matured enough as a person and gamer that I became "re"-interested in the ecologies of the settings. It grew in fascination to me, replacing overland navigation, camps, and maintaining fighting capacity, which had been my previous cultivation.

    I found that article again and I would swear it had a kind of cutaway of the predator, with organs and such. I had an admiration for the concept at that point. Also I think I scraped together enough Little Merchant earnings to have a Dungeon subscription. I always preferred Dungeon anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Remember that Trollpak came out for Runequest in 1982, and was widely praised for (among other things) its detailed anatomical cutaways of dark trolls. I can recall seeing attempts at imitating the art style for monster articles in local zines the same years. It's probably not a coincidence that Dragon included one here - although it's possible that the Dragonlords zine predated even Trollpak and included the same art.

      Delete
  3. Some years back, during the heyday of smartass websites — can't recall now if it was Something Awful or Cracked — did a hilarious take on D&D Monsters. The upshot was how silly so many of them were, and how they were only designed to kill off characters in new and annoying ways.

    The one description that stuck with me was the gelatinous cube, which the writers said "is the only creature ever to evolve on graph paper."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lots of real world things seem ridiculous if looked at from an outside viewpoint. Similarly, one can regard piercers or gelatinous cubes as simply ridiculous, or posit stalagmite-miming gastropods or that a big blob monster with a certain degree of viscosity would assume a cubic form in a 10' wide corridor.

      Delete
  4. I kind of felt that this path of "real-worlding" monsters was a false trail, like the sciencification of infravision and ultravision. I always thought piercers were cool! And they're not silly when you've got one stuck in your chest cavity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have always thought of piercers and carrion crawlers as foremost components in (most) underground landscapes. Our first piercer as PC's was a "miss". The DM gave us credit for investigating the thing and discovering the innards (he probably improvised but described them as what a tortoise looks like when you crunch your 1978 Silverado over it on the GW Parkway).

      This gave birth to an unnatural fear that the floor might be hostile, too. Stalagmite-sand?

      Delete
    2. You were right to be afraid - the trapper was waiting for you! https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Trapper

      Delete
    3. Trappers and Lurkers and Piercers oh my!

      Delete
    4. I'll see your Oz and raise you a Cave Fisher. Also one of the coolest illustrations in the history of D&D.

      Delete
  5. My 12-year old self missed any possible dry humor in the article. I’ve long considered this one of the beginnings of the “rationalization” of fantasy gaming, where orcs became people too and magic became artillery strikes and scientifically-measured special effects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >and magic became artillery strikes

      To be fair, if you read the original Chainmail rules, Wizards WERE essentially artillery — and used the same rules as catapults and "field guns" for area hits at range.

      Delete
  6. Whether or not the first installment was meant as a joke, I always loved the ecology articles (and the subsequent entries in the Monstrous Compendium). I imagine they (and the aforementioned Trollpak) were a major influence on the amazing Warhammer 40k artbook "Xenology," too: https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Xenology

    ReplyDelete