DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher

pemerton

Legend
Remember it. It was part of my introduction to the game.

Still run one off mega dungeon crawls with these same GMing principles almost wholly intact. For that play agenda, they have withstood the test of time.

A high degree of proficiency in GMing this style and in playing this style provides a rewarding experience for both sides of the table. A low degree of proficiency in GMing results in poorly conveyed information, loss of player agency and skill as arbiter of outcomes, and/or pear-shaped crawling dynamics (such as poorly considered rewards inflating PC potency for the rest of crawl). A low degree of PC proficiency can result in early TPK and/or indecision that stalls the game due to the high stakes.
Following a couple of old links brought me back to this thread from last year.

Rereading this particular post reminded me of some things Luke Crane said about running Moldvay Basic.

On player proficiency and TPKs:

The players duly raided away, but after the third wave of character deaths, they had a dawning realization that this endeavor was pointless. They quit Quasqueton after exploring 80% of the dungeon in three sessions, at the cost of about six deaths: They vowed never to go back. . . .

Why is this era of D&D about puzzle-solving and exploration? Because your characters are fragile and treasure compromises 4/5s of the experience you earn, whereas fighting monsters earns only 1/5. Thus if there's a big monster guarding a valuable piece of treasure, the incentive is to figure out a way to get the treasure without fighting the monster. Fight only as a last resort; explore first so you can better solve. This shift in emphasis away from fighting was frustrating at first, but then profoundly refreshing once we sussed out the logic. . . .

Having learned this lesson at the cost of another seven deaths, the group completed B2 in grand style: Their plans were so effective, their exploration so thorough, that the victorious player characters suffered not a point of damage in the final confrontation. And I opposed them with mind-boggling array of villainy!​

On conveying information and player skill:

t's a hard game to run. Not because of prep or rules mastery, but because of the role of the GM as impartial conveyer of really bad news. Since the exploration side of the game is cross between Telephone and Pictionary, I must sit impassive as the players make bad decisions. I want them to win. I want them to solve the puzzles, but if I interfere, I render the whole exercise pointless. . . .

The players' sense of accomplishment is enormous. They went through hell and death to survive long enough to level. They have their own stories about how certain scenarios played out. They developed their own clever strategems to solve the puzzles and defeat the opposition. If I fudge a die, I take that all away. Every bit of it. Suddenly, the game becomes my story about what I want to happen. The players, rather than being smart and determined and lucky, are pandering to my sense of drama—to what I think the story should be.

So this wink and nudge that encourages GMs to fudge is the greatest flaw of the text.


And also:

During some of the darker moments of the game, when curses flew and lives ended, my players turned to me and said, "Don't worry; don't feel badly. It's not you. It's the game."​
 

log in or register to remove this ad

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], good stuff. I've either read those excerpts before or I've watched/listened to the seminar (likely the latter) where this came from. Crane crushes it out of the park here. Running tight dungeon crawls requires an awful lot of skill with a very focused set of techniques. You don't want the players to lose, but your responsibility is to faithfully render the opposition and carry on the necessaries of play procedures with the primary objective always at the forefront; the authenticity of player success (by the mix of their own merits and the objective fall of the dice) is paramount.
 

pemerton

Legend
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], this is part of why I suck at running classic D&D dungeon crawls. I can't tolerate the Telephone/Pictionary aspect that Luke Crane describes: I want to get involved and tell my players what is really going on! But in this sort of game, that just ruins the whole thing.
 

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], this is part of why I suck at running classic D&D dungeon crawls. I can't tolerate the Telephone/Pictionary aspect that Luke Crane describes: I want to get involved and tell my players what is really going on! But in this sort of game, that just ruins the whole thing.

It certainly does. Do you enjoy Telephone, Pictionary, Charades? Or strategy games that require assymetric solutions (I know you don't play CRPGs, but Portal comes to mind). A well done dungeon crawl requires a lot of honed skill with regards to verbal and nonverbal communication (of the ilk required for those three parlour games), the ability to prep assymetric puzzles (and synch them their unraveling with the resolution mechanics), and the ability to stay committed to being a neutral referee. That last bit also takes a lot of practice as my disposition is certainly in-line with your own (and Cranes)! I want the PCs to win! But if they haven't earned it then the whole exercise is a waste of time...

This is why I'm very good at these for one-offs (even if it is a serial game connected by those one-off dungeons...run perhaps biannually), but I couldn't (and wouldn't want to) possibly commit to this style for weekly play. My preferences have long lied elsewhere.

What I often find interesting is the propensity on this board to conflate GMing one game agenda and one system with GMing another agenda or system. There is not much overlap in the techniques and disposition required to run a healthy dungeon crawl game versus a functional Story Now (!) game.
 

pemerton

Legend
Do you enjoy Telephone, Pictionary, Charades?
I enjoy them as classic parlour games, yes, but I wouldn't turn up every second weekend just to play charades! The dramatic fiction component of RPGs is hugely important to me, and the recurring narrative of those games is "D'oh! Who would have thought a fire hydrant would turn into a budgerigar in a cage?"

My neutral refereeing I tend to bring out for setting and marking exams. Whereas for me RPG-refereeing is more like supervising a research student - they have to do their own work, but I'm there to help and guide.
 

I enjoy them as classic parlour games, yes, but I wouldn't turn up every second weekend just to play charades! The dramatic fiction component of RPGs is hugely important to me, and the recurring narrative of those games is "D'oh! Who would have thought a fire hydrant would turn into a budgerigar in a cage?"

Agreed. That is why I only run them about twice a year!

My neutral refereeing I tend to bring out for setting and marking exams. Whereas for me RPG-refereeing is more like supervising a research student - they have to do their own work, but I'm there to help and guide.

Interesting. Psychologically I sort of feel a different connection to my role in GMing the games I typically enjoy these days. I think it might best be encapsulated by basically:

Stuff.PNG

I suspect you relate.
 

pemerton

Legend
My neutral refereeing I tend to bring out for setting and marking exams. Whereas for me RPG-refereeing is more like supervising a research student - they have to do their own work, but I'm there to help and guide.
Interesting. Psychologically I sort of feel a different connection to my role in GMing the games I typically enjoy these days. I think it might best be encapsulated by basically:

View attachment 68212

I suspect you relate.
The current Lewis Pulsipher thread brought me back to this one.

Sometimes when you're supervising a research student - quite often, actually - you have to poke. It's not neutral, but it's pointless to just hand the student the answer - then they're not learning how to navigate their way through the discipline.

My sort of GMing is a bit like that - only substitute "thematic stuff" for "the discipline"!
 


Emerikol

Adventurer
I believe I come pretty close to following that philosophy when I play. I create a sandbox. I never design anything with any assumptions about what the players will do. Outcomes are outcomes. I adjudicate like a computer and let the dice fall where they may. I find it a satisfying way to play but I've come to learn it's not for everyone. It does work if you have people that like the approach.
 

Dorian_Grey

First Post
I stumbled across this thread today - and it's timely. I've recently been told I should be a computer - not in so many words, but that was the intent.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top