This thread is a companion to the other one about Lewis Pulsipher's GMing advice. It is focused on the advice from Roger Musson.
My copies of these articles are in Best of White Dwarf 2, which has a 1983 copyright date. This blog suggests that the article was originally published around 1981. [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] might know the exact date!
Roger Musson's biggest contribution to D&D might be his pioneering wounds/vitality model (the article is called "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive", in the same BoWD collection). But in this post I want to call out some of his GMing advice.
I think this advice has quite a contemporary feel, even though it's over 30 years old. Three things in particular stand out for me.
When I first read this piece, and took up it's advice, I know that I found it more congenial than Lewis Pulsipher, but at the time I certainly didn't appreciate the significance of what I've called out in my second and third dot points.
Others' thoughts/experiences?
My copies of these articles are in Best of White Dwarf 2, which has a 1983 copyright date. This blog suggests that the article was originally published around 1981. [MENTION=3586]MerricB[/MENTION] might know the exact date!
Roger Musson's biggest contribution to D&D might be his pioneering wounds/vitality model (the article is called "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive", in the same BoWD collection). But in this post I want to call out some of his GMing advice.
For a satisfying campaign . . . some effort is required. The players must play imaginatively; the DM must provide scope for them to do so. . .
it would be a dull novel that consisted entirely of identical money-grubbing expeditions which conformed to the pattern of fight-loot, ad nauseum. If an FRP game is going to get anywhere, the must be provision for more than fighting and looting. . . .
It is possible to have FRP without a dungeon; Chivalry & Sorcery is that, more or less. The trouble is, the more "realistic" your fantasy world is, the more demanding the game becomes to play, in terms of time, imagination and acting ability needed. . . . The advantage of dungeon-bashing is that it provides structure while allowing freedom for development. . . .
D&D in its highest form allows players the fun of actually taking part in a fantasy "novel", but not at such a high level as to demand that each player should be Sir John Gielgud.
(To digress, I believe that the restrictions on some character classes, though they might be viewed as disadvantages, are more the reverse. Restrictions make it easier to play "in character" by dictating necessary attitudes. A paladin should be noted by his largesse and flamboyant acts of charity; these make him more interesting than a stereotyped fighting man.)
. . .
There is one problem which will crop up eventually, so be prepared to deal with it in advance. Sooner or later, players reach part of the dungeon that you haven't got round to populating yet. . .
[One] tactic is to make up the dungeon as you go along. This is not as difficult as it might sound, providing you are prepared to think quickly. The only problem is keeping a record . . . It is not a good idea to switch to improvising if the players are going to suspect. . . .
I used to keep a goodies bag of unlocated odds and ends [of magical treasure], which I would dip into in two sorts of circumstances: one, if players were having such a sad time of it that I actually felt sorry for them; two, if a player searched in a hiding place which was so clever that I wished I'd thought of it myself. Should you follow this practice, never admit it. Now that I've admitted it, I shall abandon it. In D&D it isn't necessary to play by the book, but it is essential that the players shall always think you are.
I think this advice has quite a contemporary feel, even though it's over 30 years old. Three things in particular stand out for me.
- The emphasis on acting and imagination - it is clear that the imaginative, "story" dimension to play is regarded as very important. This is a contrast with Pulsipher.
- The emphasis on GM illusionism - don't let them know you're improvising! The players are allowed to exercise (limited) narrative control, eg by looking in clever hiding places, but they're not allowed to know that they're exercising that control. This is exactly opposite to Pulsipher's advice, as it is an example of the very GM manipulation that he thinks is best eschewed. I think in the era of 2nd ed AD&D and White Wolf this became the default approach to RPGing, and it's interesting to see it being advocated in such an early text that well predates the "Hickman revolution".
- The incredibly insightful comment on paladin "restrictions", and the idea that these are actually advantages and not disadvantages because they establish clear signals between player and GM, give the player clear pathways for playing his/her PC, and in general contribute to the imaginative dimension of play. This is the most "modern" part of the whole essay, I think, as far as RPG design is concerned. The first game I know of that really learns this lesson, and is built around this sort of idea, is Maelstrom Storytelling in the mid-90s, though Over the Edge (1992) is something of a precursor. "Forge-y" games like HeroWars/Quest and Burning Wheel apply this idea in full force. I find it quite amazing to see it anticipated in such an early article.
When I first read this piece, and took up it's advice, I know that I found it more congenial than Lewis Pulsipher, but at the time I certainly didn't appreciate the significance of what I've called out in my second and third dot points.
Others' thoughts/experiences?
Last edited: