DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

[Doug McCrae]

In his review of the rpg Chivalry & Sorcery in White Dwarf #5 (Feb/Mar 1978), Lew Pulsipher distinguishes between two styles of play, "simulation" and "game": "C&S is the fantasy role-playing expression of the wargamers who favour realism and simulation while D&D is the expression of playability fans who want a good game, not simulation."

Chivalry & Sorcery encourages acting-in-character. In text quoted by Pulsipher it recommends that "if a character is stupid, role-play and have him act stupidly". Pulsipher informs us that elsewhere in the rules "players are asked to think like medieval people."

Pulsipher thinks that this will appeal to "simulation fans" but not "competitive gamers". The latter

participate in role-playing games to play an interesting game and be successful by their own standards, not to live out externally stimulated fantasies. Competitive gamers, as opposed to simulation fans, are unlikely to want to play a character as anything but their 20th century selves.​

Pulsipher's analysis of different playing styles here and in the "D&D Campaigns" series is brilliant, explicitly distinguishing between game-, story-, and simulation-focused rpg play. He anticipates future similar analyses by two decades, GDS Theory appearing in 1997.

 

[pemerton]

Pulsipher's analysis of different playing styles here and in the "D&D Campaigns" series is brilliant, explicitly distinguishing between game-, story-, and simulation-focused rpg play. He anticipates future similar analyses by two decades, GDS Theory appearing in 1997.

Using the vocabulary of GNS (from The Forge), he identifies two forms of simulationism - purist-for-system (eg C&S) and high concept (the "living novel" approach, where as I posted upthread he anticipates the issues with Dragonlance) - and also two forms of gamism - the gamble ("lottery D&D") and the crunch (his preferred skilled play).

What he doesn't identify - because it was at best incipient when he was writing - was "narravitist" play, that yields the "story" of high concept sim but via system rather than GM control.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Lew Pulsipher reviewed the rpg Tunnels & Trolls, unfavourably, in White Dwarf #2 (Aug/Sep 1977). His views are consistent with those he expressed in the "D&D Campaigns" series. T&T is too silly:

The rules suggest that the referee include as much humour in the 'tunnels' as possible and that 'anything goes'. Humour is fine, but in a wargame it should come from the people playing the game, not from the game itself. Who can believe some of the idiotic jokes and messes one finds in a silly dungeon? Some don't mind, but others are bored out of their minds.​

There are no magic items and seemingly no standard monsters which Pulsipher considered to be a drawback.

Another disadvantage is that when a player enters a world he must slough off all his ideas about the previous worlds he played in because they won't apply in the new. There are no standard monsters or magic items, so everyone must learn everything anew. This can be tedious at best, and at worst reduces the element of skill.​

Both of these criticisms are in line with Pulsipher's complaints about "anything goes" campaigns in "D&D Campaigns". In such games "player skill counts for little… players have no foundation to base decisions on; never knowing what to expect they cannot plan a rational response".

The objection to the unpredictability of monsters and magic items is also in accordance with Pulsipher's points about the importance of information gathering spells:

These rules enable players to have some control of the game. The most basic of all D&D player decisions is the decision to fight or avoid a fight. If there is no way to avoid a fight, for lack of information, players are hamstrung.​

Personally, I like the idea of there being no standard monsters or magic items in an rpg. In White Dwarf #37 there was an article called "Bloodsuckers" which I found appealing. It randomised every aspect of vampires, such as powers, vulnerabilities, and death modes. For me, getting to see the GM's creativity, in terms of content created before play begins, is very important and I enjoy exploring "strange new worlds". These are both aesthetic desires, I think. I also enjoy challenge-oriented play based on hidden information, such as the Dream Game Campaign. In this homebrew game, where dreams were treated somewhat like Gygaxian dungeons, we only learned that magic was real about halfway through the campaign.