Should it be this detailed?

[Jkeown]

I was just reading this story over on LiveScience:

http://www.livescience.com/environment/wolf_ecosystem_041209.html

It got me to thinking about my Monsters article(s). I came up with this food chain, to simulate the relationship between a number of critters. Should things ever go this far? Certainly, according to the chart, if one of these things vanished, you'd have a population problem elsewhere...

That could be an adventure in itself...

[CourtFool]

Should things ever go this far?

For some people. I would name names, but that is just bad form.

[Nightshade]

Are you going to use it in the course of your game?
Are your players interested in such things?
Is it going to make your world more interesting or (more importantly) more fun?

If the answer to these questions is no, then don't waste your time.

Nightshade

[CourtFool]

Would you use it in your game?
Would your player's interest remain the same?
Would it be more fun?
Would it waste a ton?
Would you serve it with green eggs and ham?
Would it just be a bunch of spam?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[Killer Shrike]

You could; might make an interesting background premise and could certainly be used to drive some unusual adventures.

I'd say it would be worthwhile if your campaign was stressing the Natural Order, such as if it were an overriding theme of your setting, or at the other end of the scale if your PC's include an influential Ranger or Druid type character (or several).

Otherwise its one of those things that is useful for a GM to keep in the back of their head if it helps them run their game, but doesnt really need to be called to the attention of the players.

[CourtFool]

...especially when the bards start singing Where Have All The Danga's Mouses Gone.

[Killer Shrike]

...especially when the bards start singing Where Have All The Danga's Mouses Gone.

Wouldnt that be Where Have All The Danga's Mice Gone?

[CourtFool]

Artistic discretion.