DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

[Ahnehnois]

Second, consult the dice. If there is a range available in what the PCs may encounter, announce it and then roll to determine where in the range the current situation falls. If the roll determines a persistent fact in the universe, make a note in case it comes up again. If the roll is to determine a current situation, make a note of the probabilities used in case the situation comes up again. I'm also a big fan of announcing/recording the probabilities prior to rolling the dice to avoid the whole "I rolled a 10 that means what I want it to mean" syndrome.

I hear a voice cry in my brain: "Aha, but your probability range will be based on your biases!"

I actually think that one of the least "biased" ways to determine the outcome of an open-ended situation is to roll a d%, look at the result, and ask "how does that make me feel?". Your interpretation of the dice is biased, but the dice themselves aren't.

***

As for preparation, I agree that this is one of the many purposes it serves, but I don't think it's realistic to chastise a DM who is unprepared for a situation. To some extent it may be attributable to the DM's lack of foresight, and to some extent the genuine unpredictability of the situation, but the bottom line is that stuff happens that you can't always be ready for, and you're going to have to fill in some blanks at the table, and the OP quote seems completely oblivious to this.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's a perfect explanation of the perspective, and one I can see working very well. It puts the emphasis on the game as "the players vs. the dungeon" and puts the DM purely in the role of referee. I've played games like this, admittedly not with D&D, and had a blast doing so.

Thank you. It does work extremely well when done with proficient GMs and players. This is not my preferred way for campaign play (and hasn't been for over a decade), but as a micro ecosystem (like one-off dungeon play), its extremely fun. As @Nagol has been relating, its doable as a greater campaign in sandbox play, it just requires an extraordinary amount of GM-side prep work and the relevant question (with an ecosystem that large - region or world) become "is the payoff worth the prep?" My answer to that has generally been no, as genre, pacing and other interests (several of my current GMing principles push against the principles embedded in this agenda) are subordinated to the interests that Pulsipher advocates for (and they, very often, cannot coexist).

I think Pulsipher did a fine job of explaining the approach to take for that type of game.

I think so too.

The only thing I don't like about Pulsipher's comments are his stance that other ways of playing the game are inappropriate or not enjoyable.

Yes. I don't think most of us have an issue with that portion of it - *given* the agenda, the rest follows.

I think the real issue comes in how he seems to imply that's the only agenda, even *after* noting that said agenda isn't what most players seem to be pursuing. That's weird.

Perhaps you guys are referring to the first paragraph where the blurb nature of the article doesn't allow him to elaborate, as might an essay, on the varying agendas and they are somewhat caricatured. But only somewhat. There is plenty of truth there. It might seem less of a caricature if he wasn't writing a short article and was instead composing a thesis on various agendas.

If this opinion is driven by the rest of it, then I'm not so sure. He clearly outlines (a) the agenda and (b) that he's outlining the principles and techniques for coherent and tight GMing in that specific play. When he uses the term "incompetent" later on, he is applying it to a GM trying to max out his GMing ability within the scope of this agenda. The "incompetent", therefore, may not apply to another style of play.

However, as I've written in another thread somewhere, I might be a little aloof to the potential of a strident tone to offend. I'm not talking incendiary, just strident (I don't believe Pulsipher's piece even approaches anywhere near the realm of incendiary). In that other thread, I relayed how I only recently realized that there was a vast swath of gamers who were royally turned off by Apocalypse World because of the tone of the work. Conversely, they loved Dungeon World (even though its a D&D AW Hack) because of the tone. I didn't even notice the difference in tone (outside of the colorfulness) until it was brought to my attention. I was just assimilating the ruleset.

Beyond that, different time and all and this is a British periodical with very different sensibilities than those of the mainstream popular cultures of modern western societies.

 

[Emerikol]

Good for you. However, the question remains in generic form, what happens if they go somewhere or try to do something that you haven't anticipated. Anticipating things is good, but not always feasible.

I think I know the environment very well. The nature of the people/monsters, places, and things. I realize if a player wants to throw a rope with a grappling hook and climb a wall I have to make a judgment call in some cases. That sort of call though is based on a lot of data I have that enables me to make a good judgment. I find that heavy ad libers are far more suspectible to bias. Not all of them succumb so I'm not saying that but the job of saying unbiased is a lot harder.

I prepare plans for my monsters ahead of time to avoid bias. That way if the group comes up with a neat idea I didn't anticipate I can with fairness assume the monsters didn't anticipate it either. Depending on the monster I'm working with I will have better or weaker plans. Dumb monsters shouldn't have great plans. Smart enemies though should have decent plans.

I don't think it's that hard to provide a game that is for all intents and purposes unbiased. Is it absolutely perfect? of course not. It's good enough that the players perceive they are being treated fairly and that is what matters.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think I know the environment very well. The nature of the people/monsters, places, and things. I realize if a player wants to throw a rope with a grappling hook and climb a wall I have to make a judgment call in some cases. That sort of call though is based on a lot of data I have that enables me to make a good judgment.
...
I prepare plans for my monsters ahead of time to avoid bias. That way if the group comes up with a neat idea I didn't anticipate I can with fairness assume the monsters didn't anticipate it either. Depending on the monster I'm working with I will have better or weaker plans. Dumb monsters shouldn't have great plans. Smart enemies though should have decent plans.

That's quite a lot of planning. It's a luxury. I wish I had the same luxury, but I haven't for quite a while.

I find that heavy ad libers are far more suspectible to bias. Not all of them succumb so I'm not saying that but the job of saying unbiased is a lot harder.

I don't know about that. Hewing to preconceived notions of what the game is another kind of bias, and those preconceptions may very well relate to metagame concerns like the kind of DMing under discussion. Which maps to what we call railroading.

Balancing the need to think things out to avoid bias with the need to be flexible to avoid railroading is quite a challenge. It's part of learning to DM. A big part.

I don't think it's that hard to provide a game that is for all intents and purposes unbiased. Is it absolutely perfect? of course not. It's good enough that the players perceive they are being treated fairly and that is what matters.

I suspect most of us must run games that are "good enough" for our groups. Whether they would match up to the Pulsipherian ideal I doubt.

 

[pemerton]

When designing adventures, you shouldn't put anything in there that would overbalance a single PC. Even if your wizard is way under powered, don't put a Staff of the Magi in, unless it's level appropriate

In the Pulsipherian approach, "level appropriate" means "appropriate to the dungeon level", not "appropriate to the PC level". It is taken for granted that PCs of different levels will be exploring the same dungeon.

I would think that even a fairly dispassionate referee would need to lie to the players in occasional circumstances where NPCs are lying to the players

He is talking about the referee "speaking as referee". As [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has pointed out, when the referee is speaking as a lying NPC, then lying is fine.

I am willing to assume the author was trying to address DMs working at the table level as opposed to working with in-game motivations. Rust monsters still leap at plate mail. NPCs with sunder will treat it as an option. Factions will try to further their agendas. I don't think he is addressing that.

Agreed. He is talking about metagame-driven GM vendettas.

Tsay a PC decides to try and rob a house. You were planning on an adventure elsewhere and didn't have any townspeople statted or know much about them or their protections or law enforcement.

This is so far from the sort of campaign that Pulsipher has in mind that I don't think it's unreasonable that his advice doesn't cover it.

Here are some of his comments (from the same article) on "world design":

All that is required for a campaign is a multi-level dungeon. The second thing to construct is a wilderness . . . The last major element of a campaign is a city or town. . . t is the element least needed for adventuring.​

That is, the GM doesn't "plan on an adventure". The GM designs a dungeon, and the players explore it with their PCs. If the players are planning a robbery, it will be within the context of their dungeon exploration.

Most of them just don't write advice based on the flawed presumption.

I know you're not the only poster to have said this, but I think you're being a little unfair to Pulsipher. I have only posted a few paragraphs from an article that's over 6 pages long (I would guess somewhere over 7,000 words).

Here is some more of what he says about why he takes the approach that he does:

There is nothing inherently wrong with the silly/escapist method . . . I personally consider the silly/escapist style to be both boring and inferior for any campaign, though all right occasionally for a weird evening. . . .

I believe that a skill-game campaign is likely to satisfy people more in the long run. Some people prefer luck and passivity, but they are seldom game players. If you feel a need to get drunk and/or stoned, however, try lottery D&D. The similarities are surprising.​

He is clear in his preferences, but not unthinkingly dogmatic.

 

[Ahnehnois]

He is talking about the referee "speaking as referee". As [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has pointed out, when the referee is speaking as a lying NPC, then lying is fine.

What if, however, there's some kind of roll involved, a Bluff/Sense Motive? Then, the DM really has to be obfuscatory, unless he wants to actually say that the SM check failed. This may not have been an issue when the advice was written; I don't know what mechanical resolutions were typical for social deceptions back then.

As I noted, illusions and some enchantments also create this issue, because it isn't an independent NPC that is lying through dialogue, it is the character's own senses that are lying, through the DM's narration. Can a DM realistically parse things so that it's clear that he's describing the character's perceptual experience as distinct from acting as a referee for various things (including that character's perceptual abilities)? Unlikely, in my opinion.

This is so far from the sort of campaign that Pulsipher has in mind that I don't think it's unreasonable that his advice doesn't cover it.

Here are some of his comments (from the same article) on "world design":

All that is required for a campaign is a multi-level dungeon. The second thing to construct is a wilderness . . . The last major element of a campaign is a city or town. . . t is the element least needed for adventuring.​

That is, the GM doesn't "plan on an adventure". The GM designs a dungeon, and the players explore it with their PCs. If the players are planning a robbery, it will be within the context of their dungeon exploration.

Which is what I said in my first post. His DMing advice requires the players to only act within the framework that the DM has pre-established. What is causing them to do that? Are they being forced in some way to go to the dungeon and not do something else? Is there a mutual agreement beforehand that this is what everyone wants to do and they won't do anything else?

In the absence of those types of restrictions, it's very difficult to imagine free-willed players acting within the mold he suggests. Maybe that's addressed elsewhere, but I struggle to understand DM advice that relies on players doing what the DM wants. They often don't.

 

[MerricB]

To be fair to him, maybe other ways just hadn't been explored that much yet. Clearly the hobby has changed since then.

The original article was published in White Dwarf #1 in 1977.

At this point, the RPG hobby on the wider scale was three years old. AD&D didn't yet exist.

The games on the market were:
* Dungeons & Dragons
* Traveller
* Metamorphosis Alpha
* Chivalry & Sorcery
* Empire of the Petal Throne
* Bunnies and Burrows
* Melee
* Boot Hill
* En Garde!
* Superhero 2044
* Space Patrol
* Starfaring
* Monsters! Monsters!
* Tunnels and Trolls
* Space Quest

Most of those games were unfamiliar to everyone. This is the very dawn of the hobby and of D&D.

1977. TSR had published no adventure modules. Wee Warriors had published Palace of the Vampire Queen, The Dwarven Glory and The Misty Isles. There were a couple of Tunnels & Trolls solo adventures. Tegel Manor was reviewed later in the year in White Dwarf. Blackmoor had the Temple of the Frog God... and that was it for adventures. There were no others on the market.

Incidentally, in another article from White Dwarf #1, another author complains
"There are many other problems [with D&D]: the expereince system gives greater benefit for finding treasure than for winning fights".

The context in which Lewis wrote these articles is terribly important. This isn't an article written this year. This is one written 37 years ago.

Cheers!

 

[Henry]

I well remember Lew Pulsipher's articles, especially one of my favorites, the "be aware, take care" article from Dragon Magazine, where he gave the kind of advice you'd expect from one veteran mercenary to a newbie to try and keep him alive more than the first day.

I also think there needs to be a little MORE of that thinking returning to the table - not to the "insane paranoid" level of "checking all coins in a hoard for numismatic value" or "prepare poison and smoke powder for the wizard to save spells through the power of suggestion" - but so many groups have been raised on the "guided tour" philosophy that if you present them with the smallest mystery, or one of the old Gygaxian puzzles like the circular stone holes with splinters in them from the AD&D 1 DMG, many players go blank, and just stop thinking.

Many, many, MANY parties of players i've seen wont even talk to form a coherent battle plan, they go in, each pick a separate enemy, and do their own thing, sometimes even getting in each others' way. Pulsipher in the Dragon Mag article used example of a group of fighters who charge into a grassy field to the enemy, another subgroup of the fighters and thieves sneaking in the grass, and a group of magic users who turn invisible and move around shooting fireballs. In his words, without communication, or even setting code signals or rendezvous, the enemy could leave the field and the party still might have friendly fire losses. I've seen this level of cooperation in actual play, and it's disappointing! For goodness' sake, even Monopoly needs more system mastery than that.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

The original article was published in White Dwarf #1 in 1977. (snip) This isn't an article written this year. This is one written 37 years ago.

Cheers!

Exactly.

Why try and parse statements written 37 years ago, particularly in a fairly negative fashion? Then again, perhaps we should post some of Gygax's "one true way" editorials from Dragon and watch a few people go crazy.

I sometimes think that DMing, and the philosophy behind it, is much like Bismarck's warning about never watching sausages or laws being made.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Which is what I said in my first post. His DMing advice requires the players to only act within the framework that the DM has pre-established. What is causing them to do that? Are they being forced in some way to go to the dungeon and not do something else? Is there a mutual agreement beforehand that this is what everyone wants to do and they won't do anything else?

It's the same reason that the armies are required to fight each other in a wargame: because that's what the game is about.

Even in a modern roleplaying context, I don't think it's at all unusual for a GM to say up-front: "This campaign is about [x], so make characters that fit into that."