Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6338031" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>In the early numbers of White Dwarf Lewis Pulsipher (who posts on these boards as [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION]) had a series of advice articles on playing D&D. I talked about one of these in an <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355801-DMing-philosophy-from-Lewis-Pulsipher" target="_blank">earlier thread</a>. In this thread, I want to talk about the following passage (first published in White Dwarf 24, April 1981 - reprinted in Best of White Dwarf 2):</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Basic <em>D&D</em> styles range from the "simulation" through "wargame" to "absurd" and finally "novel". As one moves along this continuum the DM's procedures become less rigorous. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The simulationist wants to reflect reality as much as possible. A fight with a broadsword and chainmail ought to work just as it did in the Middle Ages. . . . These people have no place in <em>D&D</em>; <em>D&D</em> is solidly in the war<em>game</em> camp, and simulationists should try <em>Chivalry & Sorcery</em> or make up their own games.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The "wargame" style is how <em>D&D</em> is designed to be played. . . . As much as possible, all that happens should be believable . . . if you read it in a fantasy novel. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">[T]he "absurd" style condones unbelievable occurences. . . . Monsters such as a "spelling bee" may appear, causing magic-users to foul up spells by misspelling them. This style is great for laughs when played occasionally . . . The average game tends to fall between wargame and absurd game.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Finally we have the "novel" style. . . . [T]he DM writes an oral novel in which the players are participating characters. This can be pretty bad, but the players don't mind because they're helping "write" it. In such games the DM may make up everything as he goes along.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">As one passes along the continuum one finds that players are most passive in the novel style and most active in the wargame style. (The simulation style stresses realism so much that the characters tend to be hostage to the dice, the rules, and the DM.)</p><p></p><p>I think this is pretty interesting stuff, especially considering it was written over 30 years ago!</p><p></p><p>I like the basic analysis of the styles. As someone who has GMed a lot in the "simulation" style (not C&S, nor my own game, but Rolemaster, which was published in 1982), I agree that there are challenges in preserving player agency in that sort of system. Rolemaster achieves this through three main devices - rather widespread magic, which allows the players to head off or reverse undesired but "realistic" outcomes; a skill system that makes it fairly easy for a player to get big numbers in the abilities s/he wants for his/her PC, thereby dominating over the vagaries of the dice in action resolution; and a rather complex combat system which makes player choices about how to allocate combat bonuses from round to round very important in determining how the declared actions actually resolve.</p><p></p><p>I also like the "novel" style, however (and have combined it with the "simulation" style in GMing RM, and the "wargame" style in GMing 4e). I think there are two main devices for preserving player agency in the "novel" style. The first is putting limits around when and how the GM can make things up: a clear distinction has to be drawn between making up backstory and framing scenes by reference to it, and action resolution. A GM has to do the first if the players are to get the experience of being their characters in the story; but if the GM also just makes up outcomes, then the players didn't exercise agency at all (except perhaps at PC generation).</p><p></p><p>The second device is the complement to this restraint on GMs: the action resolution mechanics have to let the players actually make their mark on the story. Of mainstream FRPGs 4e is the best game I know for this. Once you move into indie territory there are a range of other options (eg Burning Wheel or HeroWars).</p><p></p><p>The problem with railroading-type "novel" games like the original Dragonlance modules, or a lot of Planescape material, is that they tend not to use these devices. There tends to be an emphasis on pre-plotting, which of course means that outcomes have to be pre-determined, which means that the GM is not just controlling framing but resolution. And the actual game systems tend to lack action resolution mechanics that the players can use to affect the content of the fiction (especially outside of content) - most action declarations are mediated through very strong and wide-ranging GM judgement calls, which once again means that the players aren't exercising agency.</p><p></p><p>Conversely, once a game includes rules that the players can use to affect the fiction, and that are not hostage to free-ranging GM judgement calls, then we have something the mechanically looks very like the "wargaming" style, even if the purpose and aesthetics of play isn't quite the same as what Gygax and Pulsipher had in mind.</p><p></p><p>Mapping Pulsipher's terminology onto Ron Edwards' terminology, I would say that:</p><p></p><p>simulaton = purist-for-system simulation</p><p>wargaming (on its own) = skill-based step-on-up</p><p>absurd = luck-based step-on-up</p><p>novel (on its own) = high concept simulation</p><p>wargaming + novel (combined as described above) = story now</p><p></p><p>Given that D&D didn't really set out to facilitate "story now" play until 4e, and that "story now" clearly remains a very contentious approach to playing D&D, I think Pulsipher's classification does a pretty good job. It seems to me to capture the same distinctions in GMing and RPGing that Ron Edwards thought were worth drawing 20 years later.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6338031, member: 42582"] In the early numbers of White Dwarf Lewis Pulsipher (who posts on these boards as [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION]) had a series of advice articles on playing D&D. I talked about one of these in an [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?355801-DMing-philosophy-from-Lewis-Pulsipher]earlier thread[/url]. In this thread, I want to talk about the following passage (first published in White Dwarf 24, April 1981 - reprinted in Best of White Dwarf 2): [indent]Basic [I]D&D[/I] styles range from the "simulation" through "wargame" to "absurd" and finally "novel". As one moves along this continuum the DM's procedures become less rigorous. . . . The simulationist wants to reflect reality as much as possible. A fight with a broadsword and chainmail ought to work just as it did in the Middle Ages. . . . These people have no place in [I]D&D[/I]; [I]D&D[/I] is solidly in the war[I]game[/I] camp, and simulationists should try [I]Chivalry & Sorcery[/I] or make up their own games. The "wargame" style is how [I]D&D[/I] is designed to be played. . . . As much as possible, all that happens should be believable . . . if you read it in a fantasy novel. . . . [T]he "absurd" style condones unbelievable occurences. . . . Monsters such as a "spelling bee" may appear, causing magic-users to foul up spells by misspelling them. This style is great for laughs when played occasionally . . . The average game tends to fall between wargame and absurd game. Finally we have the "novel" style. . . . [T]he DM writes an oral novel in which the players are participating characters. This can be pretty bad, but the players don't mind because they're helping "write" it. In such games the DM may make up everything as he goes along. As one passes along the continuum one finds that players are most passive in the novel style and most active in the wargame style. (The simulation style stresses realism so much that the characters tend to be hostage to the dice, the rules, and the DM.)[/indent] I think this is pretty interesting stuff, especially considering it was written over 30 years ago! I like the basic analysis of the styles. As someone who has GMed a lot in the "simulation" style (not C&S, nor my own game, but Rolemaster, which was published in 1982), I agree that there are challenges in preserving player agency in that sort of system. Rolemaster achieves this through three main devices - rather widespread magic, which allows the players to head off or reverse undesired but "realistic" outcomes; a skill system that makes it fairly easy for a player to get big numbers in the abilities s/he wants for his/her PC, thereby dominating over the vagaries of the dice in action resolution; and a rather complex combat system which makes player choices about how to allocate combat bonuses from round to round very important in determining how the declared actions actually resolve. I also like the "novel" style, however (and have combined it with the "simulation" style in GMing RM, and the "wargame" style in GMing 4e). I think there are two main devices for preserving player agency in the "novel" style. The first is putting limits around when and how the GM can make things up: a clear distinction has to be drawn between making up backstory and framing scenes by reference to it, and action resolution. A GM has to do the first if the players are to get the experience of being their characters in the story; but if the GM also just makes up outcomes, then the players didn't exercise agency at all (except perhaps at PC generation). The second device is the complement to this restraint on GMs: the action resolution mechanics have to let the players actually make their mark on the story. Of mainstream FRPGs 4e is the best game I know for this. Once you move into indie territory there are a range of other options (eg Burning Wheel or HeroWars). The problem with railroading-type "novel" games like the original Dragonlance modules, or a lot of Planescape material, is that they tend not to use these devices. There tends to be an emphasis on pre-plotting, which of course means that outcomes have to be pre-determined, which means that the GM is not just controlling framing but resolution. And the actual game systems tend to lack action resolution mechanics that the players can use to affect the content of the fiction (especially outside of content) - most action declarations are mediated through very strong and wide-ranging GM judgement calls, which once again means that the players aren't exercising agency. Conversely, once a game includes rules that the players can use to affect the fiction, and that are not hostage to free-ranging GM judgement calls, then we have something the mechanically looks very like the "wargaming" style, even if the purpose and aesthetics of play isn't quite the same as what Gygax and Pulsipher had in mind. Mapping Pulsipher's terminology onto Ron Edwards' terminology, I would say that: simulaton = purist-for-system simulation wargaming (on its own) = skill-based step-on-up absurd = luck-based step-on-up novel (on its own) = high concept simulation wargaming + novel (combined as described above) = story now Given that D&D didn't really set out to facilitate "story now" play until 4e, and that "story now" clearly remains a very contentious approach to playing D&D, I think Pulsipher's classification does a pretty good job. It seems to me to capture the same distinctions in GMing and RPGing that Ron Edwards thought were worth drawing 20 years later. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
Top