The Gygaxian smørgasbord

[yesmar]

"Gygaxian smørgasbord" is a term I have been using for years to describe the wide array of things Gygax et al. placed in D&D. It can refer to anyting pilfered from pulp fiction, mythology, movies, comics, etc., but I tend to first think of monsters. This goes back to when I received the AD&D Monster Manual in '77. I remember feeling crestfallen because so many pages were devoted to dinosaurs and Greek mythology. I mean, I had Funk & Wagnalls and Bullfinch's Mythology, so why the rehash? Where were all the cool, new monsters? You know, Intellect Devourers and the like? From my perspective, "Gygaxian smørgasbord" is not necessarily a good thing.

On the flip side, it totally makes sense for D&D to incorporate a bunch of known entities because of their familiarity. It shows the way and allows eager refs to get started straight away. On our OD&D Chat discussion today, badger2305 mentioned that it was expected for refs back in the day to mix it up, dropping what they didn't like and incorporating whatever made sense for their games. (I'm paraphrasing from memory, so pardon me if I got any of that wrong.) Of couse, I totally agree with that sentiment. However, history shows that so many refs kept using the same ole monsters time and time again, so much so that many D&D games feel eerily the same.

As an exercise, my latest campaign has eschewed the Gygaxian smørgasbord. I dropped all of the monsters from Vol. II. Instead, I created 77 new monsters. (It just worked out that way. I didn't have any sort of numeric goal or desire to attempt feature parity with the critters from Vol. II, so no reskinning.) Ultimately, I was able to round out my small (Blackmoor-sized) setting and its big, local dungeon. I rewrote the monster matrix and descriptions in a manner like that of Vol. II and created my own encounter tables similar to those found in Vol. III. This was definitely some work, no doubt, but fun work. My setting feels alive in a way that previous settings did not. That is a huge plus for me and my players. Some of my players are newish to D&D (and rpgs in general). They dig the monsters because they are unfamiliar, i.e. not tropes from books, movies, or manga. My experienced D&D players are liking the new monsters because nothing is normal and all the encounters end up being tense for them due to lack of knowledge/experience. Dare I say, the local sages are making bank these days.

So, what do you think about the Gygaxian smørgasbord? Do you like it? Do you dislike it? Why or why not? If not, what do you do instead?

[jeffb]

I vote both.

Fictionally, I think D&D has been in need of a makeover for many years (decades).

I like re-writes, variants, and brand new monsters. E.G. Love Eberron's take on Drow and Giants. I like seeing wholesale replacements for things like Kobolds, Orcs, Goblinoids, Gnolls and the complete removal of Mind Flayers , Drow, Beholders, and all the other popular monsters regurgitated over and over, edition after edition.

I think other game settings- e.g. Glorantha- have introduced far more interesting monster races that serve the same in game purpose of common foes- Tusk Riders, Baboons, Trollkin, Dragonewts, Trolls, etc.

I'd love to see MORE Earth Mythology incorporated. D&D has become some kind of cheap store brand vanilla ice-cream fantasy.

Sometimes vanilla hits the spot. Just not 40+ years of it.

[yesmar]

May 9, 2021 16:48:07 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I vote both.

That’s totally fair! I should have put in an option for both. My bad.

Edit: I updated the poll so there is an option for those that like both.

[cometaryorbit]

May 9, 2021 16:48:07 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I vote both.

Me too.

Personally I like a lot of the existing monsters, but they certainly don't fit every campaign.

I don't think it was ever intended for every campaign/world to include everything (in the way later published settings try to include everything in that edition's Player's Handbook, for example).

And the OD&D descriptions are mechanically sparse enough you can give them a totally different "feel" without messing with the mechanics. Dwarves are Fighters, hardy (better saves) and aware of underground hazards - they could be Neanderthal-types in a Burroughsian campaign, or bear-folk, or something else. Elves could be replaced with Hyperborean/Melnibonean style last remnants of a former magic/tech advanced proto-human civilization...

[tedopon]

That's been one of the core "problems" with D&D since the very beginning, IMO.

[flightcommander]

I pick and choose, and amend liberally, and I feel like this is what you're supposed to do. The MM is great because it provides breadth and also scale — eg, if I want a T. Rex-like creature in my campaign, I'd like to have a rough baseline to start with. Or maybe I just want an actual T. Rex, like in that old Boot Hill scenario from Dragon Magazine! In that sense, the "Gygaxian smørgasbord" as you call it is a boon. But, I wouldn't employ the entirety of it unless I was running a Greyhawk campaign, and even then I'd be hard-pressed not to edit.

My own nascent setting has no demihumans, no orcs or kobolds or giants etc, but it does have Ogres and Trolls, and several types of Undead, plus lots of Giant-sized Critters (Crabs and Snakes and Frogs etc) — and then ladled on top are a bunch of really offbeat monsters unique to the setting. More importantly, there are a number of very peculiar high-level NPCs who have their own agendas and which an adventuring party could only temporarily align themselves — but for how long?

So yesmar I'd align myself more with your second paragraph, especially "It shows the way and allows eager refs to get started straight away." Or in the immortal words of Hector Barbarossa, "The code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules ..."

[geoffrey]

Yeah, the Monster Manual is like a buffet: You take what you want, and it is not expected that anyone would take some of EVERYTHING.

Take a look at the Nehwon Mythos section of the AD&D Deities & Demigods Cyclopedia. Its last page includes encounter tables for the world of Nehwon. The tables include about three dozen monsters from the Monster Manual (a few with tweaks and/or renamed) plus about ten monsters detailed in the Nehwon Mythos section of DDG. That's it.

I take that as an instructive example: Select a fraction of the Monster Manual's monsters (about 10% in Nehwon's case), tweak them to fit your setting, and top them off with monsters specific to your setting.

[Falconer]

I love the AD&D monster array and the RQ2 monster array and the MERP monster array and more. AD&D has got to be the single greatest, but it doesn’t have to be the be-all end-all. An all-new menu would be fine, but I haven’t necessarily tired of the classics.

[rsdean]

Well, the latest time I was actually running, as opposed to theorizing, I went with a fairly limited palette of “standard” monsters (mostly goblins, wolves, and ogres), particularly since the players were mostly new to OD&D. BITD, I used the MM as an OD&D supplement until we switched the campaign over to AD&D, but, after that, bought (but basically never used) the Fiend Folio and MM2. I know that I looked at those and thought that my world had no room for that many intelligent species, and I’m not sure that I really thought that another mass of ropy tentacles (but these ones are immune to cold!) brought that much to the table.

So, I guess my answer is “neither”, since my inclinations are more towards limiting monsters rather than expanding them...

[Deleted]

I can go either way, but I'd like to say that the thing I actually like about the smorgasbord is that it feels like something an overly-imaginative eight year old boy would come up with to populate his fantasy world, and somewhere deep inside my brain there's still that element kicking around.

[hamurai]

I voted both.

I like using the well-known monsters for "standard encounters", like a group of orcs or goblins (or humans, elves, dwarves..., for that matter) raiding a village or ambushing a caravan. They're just part of what is the base of the setting, like elves, humans, dwarves, halflings. For some mystery, investigation and/or just an unknown threat in between I use the "weird ones", even if those have been known for decades, like beholders or drow.

Dinosaurs in D&D are a good example for beasts well-known to most players from earth's past, but they're at the same time distant and strange enough so you can just add or change some details and say "How would you/your character know? Those things are versions of dinosaurs inhabiting a fantasy world, they can't possibly be exactly like we think(!) they were on earth."
The same is true for mythological entities. Greek gods never had to bother with other pantheons in the stories I know, but in a fantasy world they'd probably just be one group of gods among others. Which can be quite funny if you have the Egyptian and Roman gods also, many of which tend to be taken from the older religions and be converted to the new one. How would Zeus deal with Jupiter, who are pretty much the same? Best friends? Bitter rivals?

If I wanted to play a setting with an entirely different and new feel for me and the players, I'd probably ditch all the well-known monsters, but I'd also get rid of the demi-humans players know too well by now, or at least re-skin them. Dark Sun is a good example for a setting with well-known beings which have been re-invented for the setting, and it works nicely.

[Deleted]

May 13, 2021 23:05:09 GMT -6 hamurai said:

How would Zeus deal with Jupiter, who are pretty much the same? Best friends? Bitter rivals?

I imagine, with gods, it would be like when two teenage girls wear the same dress on prom night. 

[jeffb]

May 13, 2021 23:05:09 GMT -6 hamurai said:

. Dark Sun is a good example for a setting with well-known beings which have been re-invented for the setting, and it works nicely.

I agree- Dark Sun is fantastic for giving us very different takes on the Demi Humans, but especially the Monsters of the setting are well done. This is what I'd like to see more of, instead of the "Gygaxian Smorgasbord" that is still prevalent today.

I find it strange how so many DMs/Players/Designers are quick to change/alter rules and pump out new editions, but very rarely do we see a whole new "creature catalog" for a D&D setting- Tekumel is one obvious example, and Dark Sun. Sure we see some new creatures in each setting, but it's just a few sprinkled on top of the same ol' same ol'.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2021 7:11:28 GMT -6 jeffb said:

May 13, 2021 23:05:09 GMT -6 hamurai said:

. Dark Sun is a good example for a setting with well-known beings which have been re-invented for the setting, and it works nicely.

I agree- Dark Sun is fantastic for giving us very different takes on the Demi Humans, but especially the Monsters of the setting are well done. This is what I'd like to see more of, instead of the "Gygaxian Smorgasbord" that is still prevalent today.

I find it strange how so many DMs/Players/Designers are quick to change/alter rules and pump out new editions, but very rarely do we see a whole new "creature catalog" for a D&D setting- Tekumel is one obvious example, and Dark Sun. Sure we see some new creatures in each setting, but it's just a few sprinkled on top of the same ol' same ol'.

I think the huge difference here is money. Hasbro is trying to maximize profits by sticking close to a D&D that's marketable and proprietary, and for better or worse that's a very Forgotten Realms/Baldur's Gate style game. TSR took a lot of risks with all their settings books during the 2e days, which is a double edged sword because those settings and those risks are remembered fondly by generations of players but ultimately led to bankruptcy and the end of TSR. I think there can and should be a happy medium between the current "maximize profits no matter what" approach and TSR's fearless pie-in-the-sky approach to settings. 

[tombowings]

May 14, 2021 8:23:33 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

I think the huge difference here is money. Hasbro is trying to maximize profits by sticking close to a D&D that's marketable and proprietary, and for better or worse that's a very Forgotten Realms/Baldur's Gate style game. TSR took a lot of risks with all their settings books during the 2e days, which is a double edged sword because those settings and those risks are remembered fondly by generations of players but ultimately led to bankruptcy and the end of TSR. I think there can and should be a happy medium between the current "maximize profits no matter what" approach and TSR's fearless pie-in-the-sky approach to settings. 

I'd rather see Hasboro be now creative and soon go bankrupt than profiting by repackaging someone else's already existent ideas.

[Deleted]

Eh, to be honest, they can do whatever they want. I don't expect I'll be purchasing any more 5e material or any subsequent editions of D&D going forward, anyway. That circus has left me behind 100%. All my observations on the topic are firmly from the sidelines. From a purely business-oriented perspective, of course, what they're doing makes the most sense. If I suddenly became the CEO of Lamborghini or something I wouldn't say to myself "You know what? I think we're finished making these cars. We'll sell pickup trucks instead." In that corporate, profit-driven environment, that'd be absolutely insane and the stockholders would oust me quickly. That's the kind of environment that owns the D&D IP now, and so it doesn't particularly interest me. Hasbro is just a less-rich Disney like every other company these days. I say we go back to telling stories around the camp fire before somebody buys up the rights to that, to.

[jeffb]

May 14, 2021 8:23:33 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

May 14, 2021 7:11:28 GMT -6 jeffb said:

I agree- Dark Sun is fantastic for giving us very different takes on the Demi Humans, but especially the Monsters of the setting are well done. This is what I'd like to see more of, instead of the "Gygaxian Smorgasbord" that is still prevalent today.

I find it strange how so many DMs/Players/Designers are quick to change/alter rules and pump out new editions, but very rarely do we see a whole new "creature catalog" for a D&D setting- Tekumel is one obvious example, and Dark Sun. Sure we see some new creatures in each setting, but it's just a few sprinkled on top of the same ol' same ol'.

I think the huge difference here is money. Hasbro is trying to maximize profits by sticking close to a D&D that's marketable and proprietary, and for better or worse that's a very Forgotten Realms/Baldur's Gate style game. TSR took a lot of risks with all their settings books during the 2e days, which is a double edged sword because those settings and those risks are remembered fondly by generations of players but ultimately led to bankruptcy and the end of TSR. I think there can and should be a happy medium between the current "maximize profits no matter what" approach and TSR's fearless pie-in-the-sky approach to settings. 

Absolutely driven by $, and goes back Pre 2E to the standardization of D&D that was Gary's AD&D. TSR was "building the brand" long before WOTC was a thought in PA's mind.


However, nne thing that is unfortunate about the OSR is we see a lot of campaign setting material, but they tend to be old school vanilla, or the completely gonzo, weird sci fantasy metal/punk/doom flavor. I could use some more Tekumels or Dark Suns.

[badger2305]

May 14, 2021 10:51:57 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Eh, to be honest, they can do whatever they want. I don't expect I'll be purchasing any more 5e material or any subsequent editions of D&D going forward, anyway. That circus has left me behind 100%. All my observations on the topic are firmly from the sidelines. From a purely business-oriented perspective, of course, what they're doing makes the most sense. If I suddenly became the CEO of Lamborghini or something I wouldn't say to myself "You know what? I think we're finished making these cars. We'll sell pickup trucks instead." In that corporate, profit-driven environment, that'd be absolutely insane and the stockholders would oust me quickly. That's the kind of environment that owns the D&D IP now, and so it doesn't particularly interest me. Hasbro is just a less-rich Disney like every other company these days. I say we go back to telling stories around the camp fire before somebody buys up the rights to that, to.

Total aside, but take a look at Lamborghini's attempt to put together wheeled combat vehicles. They're... interesting. 😜

[delta]

May 9, 2021 16:12:58 GMT -6 yesmar said:

"Gygaxian smørgasbord" is a term I have been using for years to describe the wide array of things Gygax et al. placed in D&D. It can refer to anyting pilfered from pulp fiction, mythology, movies, comics, etc., but I tend to first think of monsters. This goes back to when I received the AD&D Monster Manual in '77. I remember feeling crestfallen because so many pages were devoted to dinosaurs and Greek mythology. I mean, I had Funk & Wagnalls and Bullfinch's Mythology, so why the rehash? Where were all the cool, new monsters? You know, Intellect Devourers and the like? From my perspective, "Gygaxian smørgasbord" is not necessarily a good thing.

In principle, I actually prefer the monsters from real-world mythology. They come with a sense of groundedness, deep cultural connections, sense of awareness/recognition by first-time RPG'ers, literary precedents, opportunity to read up elsewhere and so learn more about real history, etc. In contrast, "D&D as its own thing" seems a bit shallow to me. Often (in published materials) the wacky monsters seem like really stretching primarily for the purpose of achieving protectable IP content.

So in the poll I picked "I like the Gygaxian smørgasbord". But it's possible I may have blinders on about the joys of discovery with a completely novel menagerie of monsters, which is not something I've ever done.

[badger2305]

May 22, 2021 4:54:33 GMT -6 delta said:

In principle, I actually prefer the monsters from real-world mythology. They come with a sense of groundedness, deep cultural connections, sense of awareness/recognition by first-time RPG'ers, literary precedents, opportunity to read up elsewhere and so learn more about real history, etc. In contrast, "D&D as its own thing" seems a bit shallow to me. Often (in published materials) the wacky monsters seem like really stretching primarily for the purpose of achieving protectable IP content.

So in the poll I picked "I like the Gygaxian smørgasbord". But it's possible I may have blinders on about the joys of discovery with a completely novel menagerie of monsters, which is not something I've ever done.

Whenever I looked at All The World's Monsters, I would get this vague sense of there being some embedded taxonomy of monsters from different campaigns that would make more sense if they weren't cheek-by-jowl with a bunch of other monsters. I might go back and look again at that.

But the best example of a completely made up array of monsters would be that found in Empire of the Petal Throne. Appropriate to the setting, yet alien in their appearance and makeup. You can see how that served as potential inspiration for Ken Rolston and company when they were putting together Morrowind.

[Deleted]

May 22, 2021 6:32:04 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

May 22, 2021 4:54:33 GMT -6 delta said:

In principle, I actually prefer the monsters from real-world mythology. They come with a sense of groundedness, deep cultural connections, sense of awareness/recognition by first-time RPG'ers, literary precedents, opportunity to read up elsewhere and so learn more about real history, etc. In contrast, "D&D as its own thing" seems a bit shallow to me. Often (in published materials) the wacky monsters seem like really stretching primarily for the purpose of achieving protectable IP content.

So in the poll I picked "I like the Gygaxian smørgasbord". But it's possible I may have blinders on about the joys of discovery with a completely novel menagerie of monsters, which is not something I've ever done.

Whenever I looked at All The World's Monsters, I would get this vague sense of there being some embedded taxonomy of monsters from different campaigns that would make more sense if they weren't cheek-by-jowl with a bunch of other monsters. I might go back and look again at that.

But the best example of a completely made up array of monsters would be that found in Empire of the Petal Throne. Appropriate to the setting, yet alien in their appearance and makeup. You can see how that served as potential inspiration for Ken Rolston and company when they were putting together Morrowind.

Polygon put out a really extensive interview with Morrowind's devs a while back for an anniversary celebration, and one of my favorite blurbs about character design is how lore writer/artist Michael Kirkbride would convince Todd Howard to allow his crazy designs: 

"I used to have this thing with Todd, because he was one of the ones that’s like, “Let’s not make it too weird.” So I’d bamboozle him. There was a period where I would actually draw two different versions of a monster — the one that was weird and that I wanted to be in the game, and then one that was f88king crazy. And so I’d go to Todd, and I’m like, “OK, I think I’ve got the mid-level creature set.” And I’d show him a picture. He’d be like, “Nah, dude, that’s crazy.” Then I’d go back to my office and I would act like I was drawing something new, and I’d just come back with the original drawing of what I really wanted to be in there. Like, “Hey, is this what you were thinking?” And he’d be all, “Oh, yeah, that’s much better. That’s great.”

[yesmar]

May 22, 2021 4:54:33 GMT -6 delta said:

In principle, I actually prefer the monsters from real-world mythology. They come with a sense of groundedness, deep cultural connections, sense of awareness/recognition by first-time RPG'ers, literary precedents, opportunity to read up elsewhere and so learn more about real history, etc. In contrast, "D&D as its own thing" seems a bit shallow to me. Often (in published materials) the wacky monsters seem like really stretching primarily for the purpose of achieving protectable IP content.

So in the poll I picked "I like the Gygaxian smørgasbord". But it's possible I may have blinders on about the joys of discovery with a completely novel menagerie of monsters, which is not something I've ever done.

First, I’m cool with everything you say here because it’s your game, yadda yadda. For me, I live on Earth. I don’t want to play here. If you limit yourself to mythology as presented you won’t get any possibility for interesting/terrifying creatures like Pelgranes and Archveults. Sure, you can use a Pterodactyl or Rakshasa instead, but that’s going to get old after a while. (There is very little in the Monster Manual that is new and exciting to me after so many decades of continued use.) I’ll just mix it up with a new campaign and monsters unique to the region of my fantasy world I’m planning to run in. (This is one of the benefits to the DIY world building model.)

Recently, because of the Beginning Campaign thread, I decided to quickly develop a new campaign using the smorgasbord. My goal was to revisit the smorgasbord and see that it was not all boring like I think it is. I started out gung ho, but two weeks in and I have already designed 20 new monsters. These critters perfectly fit the setting I developed and are neither weird nor freakazoid. (IMHO, of course!) They aren’t same old same old tentacled Cthulhuvian horrors either. Part of my enjoyment comes from using the D&D ethos and mechanics to really get into creation. It works for me and my players, so I’m in a good spot. I am sure that lots of players of other editions would balk, but I can’t be bothered to care. Likewise I am sure some of my peers here would decry my distinct lack of CHAINMAIL and OUTDOOR SURVIVAL. So be it. (I also eschew the silver standard because my world is not synchronous with Earth’s Middle Ages.)

I guess what I am trying to say is that there’s more than one way to play it. If you like Earthly mythology mixed with Tolkien, the game’s got you covered. If you are so inclined, the game provides all that you need to create new ranges of creatures (and worlds) to terrify your players with. I happen to be so inclined, but if you aren’t, there are colorful Dragons and Orcs galore. The game is big enough to contain us all.

P.S. I do more research now than I ever did when I played the smorgasbord straight.

[flightcommander]

May 22, 2021 6:42:20 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Like, “Hey, is this what you were thinking?” And he’d be all, “Oh, yeah, that’s much better. That’s great."

I don't have any idea what Morrowind is but this a such a great Pro Tip for life, it's worth calling out.

[Deleted]

May 22, 2021 21:47:40 GMT -6 flightcommander said:

May 22, 2021 6:42:20 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Like, “Hey, is this what you were thinking?” And he’d be all, “Oh, yeah, that’s much better. That’s great."

I don't have any idea what Morrowind is but this a such a great Pro Tip for life, it's worth calling out.

Kirkbride is full of nuggets of wisdom like that. He used to post on some of the same forums I was on and the stuff he'd come out with was absolutely amazing, irreverent and insane.   

Seriously, though, if you love fantasy or open world games, Morrowind is a classic at this point. You might catch it on sale sometime on Steam or GoG. The basic premise is that you're a "stranger in a strange land", from the vanilla Roman-esque Human lands, sent to this nation of Xenophobic, arcane bug-herding Dark Elves to help fulfill an ancient Lovecraftian prophecy. If that sales pitch doesn't grab ya, I dunno what will! 

[badger2305]

May 22, 2021 21:47:40 GMT -6 flightcommander said:

May 22, 2021 6:42:20 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Like, “Hey, is this what you were thinking?” And he’d be all, “Oh, yeah, that’s much better. That’s great."

I don't have any idea what Morrowind is but this a such a great Pro Tip for life, it's worth calling out.

Morrowind is the third game in the Elder Scrolls series of computer games. It's twenty years old and still very playable, and was recently updated and re-released, IIRC.

[Deleted]

May 23, 2021 7:13:50 GMT -6 badger2305 said:

May 22, 2021 21:47:40 GMT -6 flightcommander said:

I don't have any idea what Morrowind is but this a such a great Pro Tip for life, it's worth calling out.

Morrowind is the third game in the Elder Scrolls series of computer games. It's twenty years old and still very playable, and was recently updated and re-released, IIRC.

It hasn't had any official updates, but the absolutely glorious and prolific modding community has kept it alive and made a Unity-based source port. Actually, Elder Scrolls II: Daggerfall has a similar source port and multiple new mods as well. It says a lot about a gaming community when, decades later, they're still engaging with and tinkering with the game, dissecting all its little bits and discussing it endlessly. 

Which brings us back to OD&D

[delta]

May 22, 2021 6:42:20 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Polygon put out a really extensive interview with Morrowind's devs a while back for an anniversary celebration, and one of my favorite blurbs about character design is how lore writer/artist Michael Kirkbride would convince Todd Howard to allow his crazy designs: 

"I used to have this thing with Todd, because he was one of the ones that’s like, “Let’s not make it too weird.” So I’d bamboozle him. There was a period where I would actually draw two different versions of a monster — the one that was weird and that I wanted to be in the game, and then one that was f88king crazy. And so I’d go to Todd, and I’m like, “OK, I think I’ve got the mid-level creature set.” And I’d show him a picture. He’d be like, “Nah, dude, that’s crazy.” Then I’d go back to my office and I would act like I was drawing something new, and I’d just come back with the original drawing of what I really wanted to be in there. Like, “Hey, is this what you were thinking?” And he’d be all, “Oh, yeah, that’s much better. That’s great.”

Ha! Reminds me of this: In programming, per Coding Horror site, this is referred to as "A Duck" (or "Queen's Duck", from old video game Battle Chess):

A feature added for no other reason than to draw management attention and be removed, thus avoiding unnecessary changes in other aspects of the product.

I don't know if I actually invented this term or not, but I am certainly not the originator of the story that spawned it.

This started as a piece of Interplay corporate lore. It was well known that producers (a game industry position, roughly equivalent to PMs) had to make a change to everything that was done. The assumption was that subconsciously they felt that if they didn't, they weren't adding value.

The artist working on the queen animations for Battle Chess was aware of this tendency, and came up with an innovative solution. He did the animations for the queen the way that he felt would be best, with one addition: he gave the queen a pet duck. He animated this duck through all of the queen's animations, had it flapping around the corners. He also took great care to make sure that it never overlapped the "actual" animation.

Eventually, it came time for the producer to review the animation set for the queen. The producer sat down and watched all of the animations. When they were done, he turned to the artist and said, "that looks great. Just one thing - get rid of the duck."