Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6313130" data-attributes="member: 42582">In the Pulsipherian approach, &quot;level appropriate&quot; means &quot;appropriate to the dungeon level&quot;, not &quot;appropriate to the PC level&quot;. It is taken for granted that PCs of different levels will be exploring the same dungeon.He is talking about the referee &quot;speaking as referee&quot;.&nbsp; As [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] has pointed out, when the referee is speaking as a lying NPC, then lying is fine.Agreed. He is talking about metagame-driven GM vendettas.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 &quot;world design&quot;: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 &quot;plan on an adventure&quot;. 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.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&amp;D. The similarities are surprising.He is clear in his preferences, but not unthinkingly dogmatic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6313130, member: 42582"] 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. 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. Agreed. He is talking about metagame-driven GM vendettas. 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": [indent]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. . . [I]t is the element least needed for adventuring.[/I][/indent][I] 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. 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: [indent]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 [I]D&D[/I]. The similarities are surprising.[/indent] He is clear in his preferences, but not unthinkingly dogmatic.[/i] [/QUOTE]

Verification