# DMing philosophy, from Lewis Pulsipher



## pemerton (Jun 11, 2014)

Lewis Pulsipher was a prominent contributor to White Dwarf in its early days. The following quotes are from his article in an early number of White Dwarf (my copy is in Best of White Dwarf vol 1, 1980):

_D&D_ players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel . . . The escapists can be divided into those who prefer to be told a story by the referee, in effect, with themselves as protagonists, and those who like a silly, totally unbelievable game. . . In California, for example, this leads to referees who make up more than half of what happens, what is encountered and so on, as the game progresses rather than doing it beforehand. . . . [T]he player is a passive receptor, with little control over what happens. . .

Gary Gygax has made it clear that _D&D_ is a wargame, though the majority of players do not use it as such. . .

The referee [in a skill campaign] must think of himself as a friendly computer with discretion. Referee interference in the game must be reduced as much as possible . . . Effectively, this means that the referee should not make up anything important after an adventure has begun.  He should only operate monsters encountered according to logic and, where necessary, dice rolls. . . . Occasionally an adventure will be dull, because players take the wrong turns or check the wrong rooms, while others may be 'milk runs' because the players are lucky. Referees _must_ resist the temptation to manipulate the players by changing the situation. Every time the referee manipulates the game on the basis of his omniscience, he reduces the element of skill. . . 

The referee who, for example, schemes to take a magic item away from a player is incompetent. If the player doesn't deserve the item he shouldn't have obtained it in the first place. Don't lie to the players when speaking as referee. If players can't believe what the referee tells them they are case adrift without hope. . . .​
I tried to implement this advice in my early GMing (around 1984). I was not very good at it - I'm not a particular effective "computer with discretion", and my players didn't (and don't) like the occasional dull adventure. But I do like the advice about not manipulating the players. It was around 1986, with original Oriental Adventures, that I started to discover a way of GMing in which the GM would make stuff up on the spot, while still allowing players the scope to make choices which are genuine in their consequences, thereby avoiding the railroading that Pulsipher warns against. (More than 15 years later I discovered that this approach to GMing had been refined and theorised by Ron Edwards and others at The Forge.)

Does any one else have memories of reading Pulsipher's advice, or playing Pulsipherian D&D? Thoughts? Experiences?


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Jun 11, 2014)

Oh man, those were the days... As much as I respect Lew Pulispher for his PBM (_Song of the Night_) and board games (_Britannia_, yay!) his reasoning in this article does sound wrong to me.



Lew Pulsipher said:


> The referee [in a skill campaign] must think of himself as a friendly computer with discretion. Referee interference in the game must be reduced as much as possible . . . Effectively, this means that the referee should not make up anything important after an adventure has begun.  He should only operate monsters encountered according to logic and, where necessary, dice rolls. . . . Occasionally an adventure will be dull, because players take the wrong turns or check the wrong rooms, while others may be 'milk runs' because the players are lucky. Referees _must_ resist the temptation to manipulate the players by changing the situation. Every time the referee manipulates the game on the basis of his omniscience, he reduces the element of skill. . .




But then:



Lew Pulsipher said:


> The referee who, for example, schemes to take a magic item away from a player is incompetent. If the player doesn't deserve the item he shouldn't have obtained it in the first place. Don't lie to the players when speaking as referee. If players can't believe what the referee tells them they are case adrift without hope. . . .




If the problem was that the player obtained the item (GM fault!), how could the game master control the situation? What if he placed it in the dungeon for a different character who bit the dust before reaching it? The first section tells the GM to not change the adventure, so wouldn't he have to let it in there? Or is the problem that he placed the item at all?

The whole stuff sounds very dogmatic. Prepare the stuff and let the players run through it without much interference from you. And if something goes wrong, either the PCs are dead (preferable outcome) or you're to blame!

Even thirty years ago I ran RPGs for the shared experience, and everything which enhances this shared experience is good. Nothing against a good TPK, but flexibility and spontaneous changes to enhance the game are a virtue, not a vice.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 11, 2014)

Lewis Pulsipher is still writing about games - his blog is here: http://pulsiphergamedesign.blogspot.com.au/

You might find this article interesting as it covers similar ground to the article you cite:
Are you a Game Designer or a Fiction Writer?

Cheers!


----------



## Shiroiken (Jun 11, 2014)

Jan van Leyden said:


> If the problem was that the player obtained the item (GM fault!), how could the game master control the situation? What if he placed it in the dungeon for a different character who bit the dust before reaching it? The first section tells the GM to not change the adventure, so wouldn't he have to let it in there? Or is the problem that he placed the item at all?
> 
> The whole stuff sounds very dogmatic. Prepare the stuff and let the players run through it without much interference from you. And if something goes wrong, either the PCs are dead (preferable outcome) or you're to blame!
> 
> Even thirty years ago I ran RPGs for the shared experience, and everything which enhances this shared experience is good. Nothing against a good TPK, but flexibility and spontaneous changes to enhance the game are a virtue, not a vice.



When designing adventures, you shouldn't put anything in there that would overbalance a single PC. Even if your wizard is way under powered, don't put a Staff of the Magi in, unless it's level appropriate, because you cannot ever guarantee that that PC will be the one to get it.

The players are responsible for treasure distribution, so the DM shouldn't be involved. Once, in 4E, one player was angry with me because I never put in magic items for his character. I had, but there was another character that could use the same items just as well (or better), and the group kept giving those items to the other character. It was not my fault, except for using the silly notion of specifically choosing items for individual PCs (which was a suggestion for 4E).

As to the OP, I've tried to mix the styles a bit. I try to tell a story with the PCs as the protagonists, but I try to leave the skill level as high as possible. I usually figure out the NPCs motivations and the setting, then figure out exactly what would happen with no PC interference. I then adjust that based on the actions of the PCs. Smart actions by the PCs will influence things positively, while stupid ideas will normally make things worse.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 11, 2014)

Now we know howandwhy99's true identity.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 11, 2014)

> Gary Gygax has made it clear that _D&D_ is a wargame, though the majority of players do not use it as such. . .



Well, that's probably true.



> The referee [in a skill campaign] must think of himself as a friendly computer with discretion. Referee interference in the game must be reduced as much as possible . . . Effectively, this means that the referee should not make up anything important after an adventure has begun.



That just seems completely untenable. It assumes both that some kind of prefabricated content exists that would allow a game to move forward without making stuff up, and that the players stay within the scope of that content. Where is this coming from? A published adventure in a published setting? Or someone who creates that much of their own content whole cloth? That's a niche within a niche either way. Maybe it's possible to run a game that way, but I wouldn't want to try.

To suggest that a referee should not interfere with the game assumes that there is a game that exists independently of that referee. For D&D I look at it precisely the opposite way. The game is the DM.



> Every time the referee manipulates the game on the basis of his omniscience, he reduces the element of skill.



Seems to me that there are ways in which this could be true, and a whole bunch of ways in which it can be false.



> The referee who, for example, schemes to take a magic item away from a player is incompetent. If the player doesn't deserve the item he shouldn't have obtained it in the first place.



That presumes that it was being taken away specifically because the player didn't deserve it, and more broadly that there is even such a thing as deserving or not deserving and that this is relevant. Again, that's a very idiosyncratic way of looking at things. What if there's just a thief NPC who wants to do some thieving? What if the theft is some kind of quest/challenge/plot hook independently of whether or not the player ought to have the item?



> Don't lie to the players when speaking as referee. If players can't believe what the referee tells them they are case adrift without hope. . . .



I would think that even a fairly dispassionate referee would need to lie to the players in occasional circumstances where NPCs are lying to the players, or when various types of supernatural deception are at play (illusions, mostly).


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 11, 2014)

Well, first off, he's straight-up wrong about Gygax's intentions, to judge by Gygax's own games, which featured a great deal of imaginative play and a DM who was very much not a "neutral computer".

Secondly, the whole thing is hilariously "of it's time". It's practically wearing flares. It's an extremist position, too, one that allows for no nuance or flexibility, and even he admits it's likely to make for low-enjoyment gaming! Bizarre to see that advocated for.

Finally, it's an attitude that, if followed, means the DM could potentially be replaced by a computer pretty easily. I rather imagine he might have found, say, Skyrim, a better "D&D" for his money than any actual TT RPG.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 11, 2014)

pemerton said:


> Does any one else have memories of reading Pulsipher's advice, or playing Pulsipherian D&D? Thoughts? Experiences?




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.


----------



## ephemeron (Jun 11, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Secondly, the whole thing is hilariously "of it's time". It's practically wearing flares. It's an extremist position, too, one that allows for no nuance or flexibility, and even he admits it's likely to make for low-enjoyment gaming! Bizarre to see that advocated for.




One of the things that Jon Peterson's _Playing at the World_ really brought out for me is that gamer arguments have always been overheated, no less so in fanzines 40 years ago than on Internet forums now. Pulsipher's shot at Gygax was nothing compared to what people were saying about him in venues like Alarums and Excursions. 

And the "D&D is way too expensive! Why does Gygax/TSR/Wizards think they can get away with this kind of price gouging?" complaint goes back to the beginning, too.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, that's probably true.
> 
> That just seems completely untenable. It assumes both that some kind of prefabricated content exists that would allow a game to move forward without making stuff up, and that the players stay within the scope of that content. Where is this coming from? A published adventure in a published setting? Or someone who creates that much of their own content whole cloth? That's a niche within a niche either way. Maybe it's possible to run a game that way, but I wouldn't want to try.




Since that's a good précis of how I GM, I believe you are incorrect.



> To suggest that a referee should not interfere with the game assumes that there is a game that exists independently of that referee. For D&D I look at it precisely the opposite way. The game is the DM.




I prefer to split the role of DM into _designer_ -- one who creates situations and _referee_ one who arbitrates between player input and a prepared situation.  When I am acting as a referee, I prefer not to try to alter the situations on-the-fly other than basic extrapolation of consequence.  The whole independence thing correlates to the whole published adventure eco-system; could a different DM plausibly run the same scenario?  I view as more the "situation exists independently from the PCs (or in some cases, interdependently with the PCs).  Could I as a GM plausibly run this same scenario with a different group of players?



> Seems to me that there are ways in which this could be true, and a whole bunch of ways in which it can be false.




Even if skill is not reduced, such interference obscures the game workings from the player.  This obfuscation gets worse if the interference is itself hidden through illusionism, fudging, etc.



> That presumes that it was being taken away specifically because the player didn't deserve it, and more broadly that there is even such a thing as deserving or not deserving and that this is relevant. Again, that's a very idiosyncratic way of looking at things. What if there's just a thief NPC who wants to do some thieving? What if the theft is some kind of quest/challenge/plot hook independently of whether or not the player ought to have the item?




This part I partly disagree with.  If the DM is scheming to remove a magic item because it is causing him annoyance then I get the reference.  I've had that happen to me a few times when I have had the pleasure of playing.  The most egregious example I can think of is we gained a very fast flying item.  The DM started adding inconveniences to it (such as it slowly consuming spell books and scrolls) then having NPCs offer book value for it.  But we as a group felt its value to us (strategic movement, mainly -- it was a large world) outweighed the offers and eventually it was taken from us at sword point by the local monarch -- who paid us book value for the privilege.  The DM didn't seem to understand why we didn't want to accept further commissions from that king or even stay within his lands.

If on the other hand, other groups inside the game are scheming to acquire an item known to be in the PCs hands that is fair game.



> I would think that even a fairly dispassionate referee would need to lie to the players in occasional circumstances where NPCs are lying to the players, or when various types of supernatural deception are at play (illusions, mostly).




Yeah and I make the distinction clear to the players; more frequently than not with some.  _I as referee_ will convey what you perceive is going on as accurately as I can  What I won't do is offer advice/extra detail/vague assurances to try to entice a PC into a situation I think is interesting.  _I speaking as a NPC_ will be trying to convey what the NPC wants to convey as accurately as I can.  So if the NPC wants you to believe a lie then I will try to accurately project that.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 11, 2014)

Nagol said:


> I prefer to split the role of DM into _designer_ -- one who creates situations and _referee_ one who arbitrates between player input and a prepared situation.  When I am acting as a referee, I prefer not to try to alter the situations on-the-fly other than basic extrapolation of consequence.



I struggle to imagine how the same person could fulfill both roles, though, and not have some crossover between the two. That is to say, how can you be sure that your basic extrapolation is not in some way influenced by whatever advance knowledge and opinions you may have had about this scenario?



> The whole independence thing correlates to the whole published adventure eco-system; could a different DM plausibly run the same scenario?  I view as more the "situation exists independently from the PCs (or in some cases, interdependently with the PCs).



That's kind of the distinction that I'm getting at though. Existing independently and interdependently are completely different things.



> Even if skill is not reduced, such interference obscures the game workings from the player.  This obfuscation gets worse if the interference is itself hidden through illusionism, fudging, etc.



All true to an extent. However, part of player skill is trying to figure out the game workings. That is to say, determining the mechanical level of challenge posed by a scenario or the probability of success of an action. Obscurity increases this element of skill.



> This part I partly disagree with.  If the DM is scheming to remove a magic item because it is causing him annoyance then I get the reference.  I've had that happen to me a few times when I have had the pleasure of playing.  The most egregious example I can think of is we gained a very fast flying item.  The DM started adding inconveniences to it (such as it slowly consuming spell books and scrolls) then having NPCs offer book value for it.  But we as a group felt its value to us (strategic movement, mainly -- it was a large world) outweighed the offers and eventually it was taken from us at sword point by the local monarch -- who paid us book value for the privilege.  The DM didn't seem to understand why we didn't want to accept further commissions from that king or even stay within his lands.
> 
> If on the other hand, other groups inside the game are scheming to acquire an item known to be in the PCs hands that is fair game.



Well, yes. I totally get that this kind of DM metagaming; creating an in-game scenario to serve his own ends, can be a problem. The thing is that the original quote described a situation that may or may not arise from that kind of intent. I would not assume that all attempts to steal, sunder, or otherwise remove an item from a PC's control are examples of DMs trying to remove problematic items.

This stuff just happens sometimes. In combat, removing an opponent's valuable item makes tactical sense. Out of combat, stealing valuable things makes financial sense if you can get away with it.

I do agree that if the DM has a problem with the players' capabilities, an in-game bitch slap is probably not the appropriate solution, on a variety of levels. To me, the real issue is the intent, not what is happening in the game world. Almost any action can be appropriate, or inappropriate, depending on the context.



> Yeah and I make the distinction clear to the players; more frequently than not with some.  _I as referee_ will convey what you perceive is going on as accurately as I can  What I won't do is offer advice/extra detail/vague assurances to try to entice a PC into a situation I think is interesting.  _I speaking as a NPC_ will be trying to convey what the NPC wants to convey as accurately as I can.  So if the NPC wants you to believe a lie then I will try to accurately project that.



It becomes more challenging with illusions. I distinctly recall an early scenario where we went through a chase with a villain and finally caught up with him to find out that he was a figment. It felt like all the effort and mechanical choices we'd made to get to that point were meaningless, and it seemed like the DM was jerking us around. Why play out the scenario of a chase if there was nothing to catch?

Conversely, I suspect that the DM was refereeing correctly by leading us to believe that the illusion was real. So the implications of that type of situation in this context are unclear to me.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> I struggle to imagine how the same person could fulfill both roles, though, and not have some crossover between the two. That is to say, how can you be sure that your basic extrapolation is not in some way influenced by whatever advance knowledge and opinions you may have had about this scenario?




You are correct - they basically cannot, but a lot of people can fool themselves into thinking they are doing that sort of thing, and that's good enough for them. We are subjective, limited creatures, so he's discussing an ideal, rather than an absolute. Ironically it's really a form of illusionism, in that you are providing the illusion, in this case, that you are merely a neutral arbiter.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 11, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> You are correct - they basically cannot, but a lot of people can fool themselves into thinking they are doing that sort of thing, and that's good enough for them. We are subjective, limited creatures, so he's discussing an ideal, rather than an absolute. Ironically it's really a form of illusionism, in that you are providing the illusion, in this case, that you are merely a neutral arbiter.



I didn't think to turn it around like that, but I agree. The type of neutrality being discussed is such a far-off ideal that maybe what the author was getting at is a form of delusion to that effect rather than the reality of it. It would make more sense.


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 11, 2014)

This rubs me the wrong way. Some kind of highbrow analysis of game design theory that's wielded like a cudgel against other methods. 

Truly, there's probably a lot I could learn from this guy, but I'd rather not because I'll just end up mad.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> I struggle to imagine how the same person could fulfill both roles, though, and not have some crossover between the two. That is to say, how can you be sure that your basic extrapolation is not in some way influenced by whatever advance knowledge and opinions you may have had about this scenario?




Extrapolation should be influenced by knowledge of the scenario.  What do faction know and want, for example.  What I don't want to do is make qualitative assessment of the players success and adjust the scenario on the fly either through adding or deleting elements of the situation or by adjusting original difficulty.    "This has been a cakewalk; I better double the number of opponents!"  "The PCs are too lucky; the BBEG shouldn't have failed his save in the first round I wanted him to get away!" "The PCs are really struggling; I think they'll find a new ally in the next room".



> That's kind of the distinction that I'm getting at though. Existing independently and interdependently are completely different things.




To a large extent that's true.  There are a lot of scenarios I ran for my CHAMPIONS groups that would require extensive re-write since the scenarios were heavily personalised using the tools and levers in the system (Disadvantages, Perks, etc.) i.e. the scenarios were interdependent with the PCs.  It is less true for the scenarios I devised for D&D and other games where such levers have less impact and thus more independence.  I have run different groups through the same scenarios in D&D and enjoyed the different play experiences and watching the different consequences unfold.



> All true to an extent. However, part of player skill is trying to figure out the game workings. That is to say, determining the mechanical level of challenge posed by a scenario or the probability of success of an action. Obscurity increases this element of skill.




And DM interference adds noise to the signal.  If the DM interferes to adjust an outcome the players cannot use the result obtained as a fair data point.  If the players do not know about the interference and do use the result as a data point, the model they develop will diverge from the game.  In other words, they will assume similar interference as part of their model.



> Well, yes. I totally get that this kind of DM metagaming; creating an in-game scenario to serve his own ends, can be a problem. The thing is that the original quote described a situation that may or may not arise from that kind of intent. I would not assume that all attempts to steal, sunder, or otherwise remove an item from a PC's control are examples of DMs trying to remove problematic items.
> 
> This stuff just happens sometimes. In combat, removing an opponent's valuable item makes tactical sense. Out of combat, stealing valuable things makes financial sense if you can get away with it.
> 
> ...




You play out the chase to determine what resources are expended, if any and how much time was gained by the opponents, and if the PCs manage to discover the ruse and thus gain more knowledge of the opponent's abilities.  In other words, you do it to determine consequence and situation extrapolation. So long as the figment was adjudicated correctly, of course.  Most such devices don't have the capacity to travel far, act independently, or to respond to new environments.

It comes down to the author's intent and context.  He did have limited space.  I am willing to assume the author was trying to address DMs working at the table level as opposed to working with in-game motivations.  Rust monsters still leap at plate mail.  NPCs with sunder will treat it as an option.  Factions will try to further their agendas.  I don't think he is addressing that.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 11, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> You are correct - they basically cannot, but a lot of people can fool themselves into thinking they are doing that sort of thing, and that's good enough for them. We are subjective, limited creatures, so he's discussing an ideal, rather than an absolute. Ironically it's really a form of illusionism, in that you are providing the illusion, in this case, that you are merely a neutral arbiter.




Any scenario I design, I am comfortable with any result the PCs can achieve. I am more interested in what the PCs will make of the situation than trying to further any agenda.  

Does that mean I don't have biases or blind-spots in design?  Of course not.

What it does mean is once the design is done, I will attempt to fairly and equably use the agreed rules and player input to determine what happens.  The results and the means through which they are achieved are as transparent as I can make it as a referee.


----------



## DMZ2112 (Jun 11, 2014)

Dr. Pulsipher via pemerton said:


> _D&D_ players can be divided into two groups, those who want to play the game as a game and those who want to play it as a fantasy novel . . .




That is some Welcome to the Stage of History stuff, right there.



> In California, for example, this leads to referees who make up more than half of what happens, what is encountered and so on, as the game progresses rather than doing it beforehand. . . .




That is just /hilarious/.  Gosh dern Californians.  Smokin' their weed.  Electin' their Democrats.  Fudgin' their die rolls.​


			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> Does any one else have memories of reading Pulsipher's advice, or playing Pulsipherian D&D? Thoughts? Experiences?




All of my greatest accomplishments as a dungeon master, the ones my players still talk about, were spun off of minimal notes at best, with only the most critical moments set down in exacting detail (and only when strictly necessary).  When I run off a page the result is railroady and mechanical.  I agree for the most part with letting the dice fall where they may -- otherwise, why have dice? -- but sometimes the story just needs a die to come up differently.  When it does, I am there.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> All true to an extent. However, part of player skill is trying to figure out the game workings. That is to say, determining the mechanical level of challenge posed by a scenario or the probability of success of an action. Obscurity increases this element of skill.






Nagol said:


> And DM interference adds noise to the signal.  If the DM interferes to adjust an outcome the players cannot use the result obtained as a fair data point.  If the players do not know about the interference and do use the result as a data point, the model they develop will diverge from the game.  In other words, they will assume similar interference as part of their model.




Eerie. I was getting ready to post a response to Ahn's post above when I hit refresh and Nagol posted this. Almost exactly what I had written out on notepad.

For the play agenda Pulsipher is advocating for, it is imperative that the signal that the players are receiving and the GM is presenting maintains purity and coherency, lest the authenticity and autonomy of strategic decision-making by the players is subverted, and their outcomes are no longer their own.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 11, 2014)

Nagol said:


> Any scenario I design, I am comfortable with any result the PCs can achieve. I am more interested in what the PCs will make of the situation than trying to further any agenda.
> 
> Does that mean I don't have biases or blind-spots in design?  Of course not.
> 
> What it does mean is once the design is done, I will attempt to fairly and equably use the agreed rules and player input to determine what happens.  The results and the means through which they are achieved are as transparent as I can make it as a referee.




Sure, and I respect that, but you are human, and ultimately it is an_ illusion_ of neutrality, and at a very significant cost, that being the much stronger potential of a boring game (as the article does acknowledge, to it's credit!). It also requires a certain mindset/approach from the players. Plus you have the big issue of what happens if the players go totally off what you've prepared - you can either start making stuff up, which is basically identical to "normal" D&D DMing, or you can stop the game and prepare for X time. Which means this works best in dungeon-ish scenarios, where variables are limited.

It's kind of like the "reality TV" approach to D&D, as it were.


----------



## Schmoe (Jun 11, 2014)

Manbearcat said:


> 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.




That's a perfect explanation of the perspective, and one I can see working very well.  It puts the emphasis on the game as "the players vs. the dungeon" and puts the DM purely in the role of referee.  I've played games like this, admittedly not with D&D, and had a blast doing so.  I think Pulsipher did a fine job of explaining the approach to take for that type of game.

The only thing I don't like about Pulsipher's comments are his stance that other ways of playing the game are inappropriate or not enjoyable.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 11, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sure, and I respect that, but you are human, and ultimately it is an_ illusion_ of neutrality, and at a very significant cost, that being the much stronger potential of a boring game (as the article does acknowledge, to it's credit!). It also requires a certain mindset/approach from the players. Plus you have the big issue of what happens if the players go totally off what you've prepared - you can either start making stuff up, which is basically identical to "normal" D&D DMing, or you can stop the game and prepare for X time. Which means this works best in dungeon-ish scenarios, where variables are limited.
> 
> It's kind of like the "reality TV" approach to D&D, as it were.




It is an illusion that covers almost all aspects of civilised life.

That said, it is also the reason I use agreed-upon rules sets, established precedent of past rulings, and roll dice in the open.  The results are neutral in the sense that they are not my whims but rather predictable and understandable results of the constraints in play.  My consequence determination also strives for consistency and is rules-driven even if some of the inputs are hidden from the players.


----------



## pickin_grinnin (Jun 11, 2014)

He's being overly simplistic.  There are many other ways of GMing than those he mentions.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2014)

Manbearcat said:


> For the play agenda Pulsipher is advocating for, it is imperative that ...




Yes.  I don't think most of us have an issue with that portion of it - *given* the agenda, the rest follows.

I think the real issue comes in how he seems to imply that's the only agenda, even *after* noting that said agenda isn't what most players seem to be pursuing.  That's weird.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 11, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Yes.  I don't think most of us have an issue with that portion of it - *given* the agenda, the rest follows.
> 
> I think the real issue comes in how he seems to imply that's the only agenda, even *after* noting that said agenda isn't what most players seem to be pursuing.  That's weird.




To be fair, many many people think their way to play is *the* way to play. 

Though I take issue with this, his advice is fairly good for those who prefer the most extreme sandbox end of the playstyle spectrum.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 11, 2014)

Schmoe said:


> The only thing I don't like about Pulsipher's comments are his stance that other ways of playing the game are inappropriate or not enjoyable.



To be fair to him, maybe other ways just hadn't been explored that much yet. Clearly the hobby has changed since then.



Nagol said:


> Extrapolation should be influenced by knowledge of the scenario.  What do faction know and want, for example.  What I don't want to do is make qualitative assessment of the players success and adjust the scenario on the fly either through adding or deleting elements of the situation or by adjusting original difficulty.    "This has been a cakewalk; I better double the number of opponents!"  "The PCs are too lucky; the BBEG shouldn't have failed his save in the first round I wanted him to get away!" "The PCs are really struggling; I think they'll find a new ally in the next room".



That's very difficult to do though if the players do anything that is at all unexpected.

For example, say a PC decides to try and rob a house. You were planning on an adventure elsewhere and didn't have any townspeople statted or know much about them or their protections or law enforcement. You might make one of several decisions; you might roll something to be noticed, you might let them waltz through, you might throw them a curve by having a significant NPC show up in some way. The point is, in an open-ended situation for which you aren't prepared, there's no unbiased way of going about resolving it. Any choice you might make is influenced by your knowledge of the players' actions.

Now, what I think varies will be the amount of improvisation a DM has to do. Like I pointed out earlier, if you have rigorous plans and the players stay within them, this conflict does not arise. I just think it's really difficult to consistently meet both of those criteria.



> I have run different groups through the same scenarios in D&D and enjoyed the different play experiences and watching the different consequences unfold.



That's what I can acknowledge is possible to do, but is really unfathomable to me. Each game is a one-time thing; trying to run the same scenario again might cause my brain to explode.



> And DM interference adds noise to the signal.  If the DM interferes to adjust an outcome the players cannot use the result obtained as a fair data point.  If the players do not know about the interference and do use the result as a data point, the model they develop will diverge from the game.  In other words, they will assume similar interference as part of their model.



The model includes that interference though; it's called circumstance bonuses. (At least, some versions include that). And there's a real question of what you want the players to know.

If, for example, their attack bonus is +2 and the enemy's AC is 13, should it be knowable to the player that they have a 50% chance of succeeding at an attack? If they roll the AC exactly and then one point below it, they will conclusively know that. Conversely, if you occasionally throw in a circumstance modifier, they won't be able to reach that level of knowledge. I don't myself do this, but I could see it being done.

The problem is that if player knowledge exceeds character knowledge, you're metagaming. So if you're trying to avoid that, some degree of tomfoolery behind the scenes may be necessary to obfuscate the omniscient player's knowledge level down a bit in some cases.



> You play out the chase to determine what resources are expended, if any and how much time was gained by the opponents, and if the PCs manage to discover the ruse and thus gain more knowledge of the opponent's abilities.  In other words, you do it to determine consequence and situation extrapolation. So long as the figment was adjudicated correctly, of course.  Most such devices don't have the capacity to travel far, act independently, or to respond to new environments.



I don't have any idea where it was or not; but there's a question in my mind here again about intent. If the NPC had some good reason for behaving this way, it's one thing. If the DM is metagaming this to get the outcome he wants (us finding an illusion), then it feels rather contrived.



> I am willing to assume the author was trying to address DMs working at the table level as opposed to working with in-game motivations.



That may be; it's not clear what he meant.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 11, 2014)

I never knew of the author but his playstyle is exactly mine.   And yes I do create a massive amount of content up front for my players.  I don't do the entire world down to the individual man of course.  I do do a region of the world where the primary campaign is running to a great level of detail.   I know if the bartenders wife is having an affair with the baker.   

I only recently though completely eschewed screwing with the dice.  I have found that it is cheating the payoff of my playstyle to fudge the dice so now I don't.  I'm not saying that is true for other playstyles.  A playstyle is all about the payoff.

I will also add that I've gotten good enough at this approach that the game stays pretty interesting.  My players are active and I create an interesting world but I don't have entire sessions that are boring.  I might have one room on occasion.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> For example, say a PC decides to try and rob a house. You were planning on an adventure elsewhere and didn't have any townspeople statted or know much about them or their protections or law enforcement. You might make one of several decisions; you might roll something to be noticed, you might let them waltz through, you might throw them a curve by having a significant NPC show up in some way. The point is, in an open-ended situation for which you aren't prepared, there's no unbiased way of going about resolving it. Any choice you might make is influenced by your knowledge of the players' actions.



I do have the townspeople stat'd.  I also have wandering encounter charts that determine who might come by at any given time.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 11, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I do have the townspeople stat'd.  I also have wandering encounter charts that determine who might come by at any given time.



Good for you. However, the question remains in generic form, what happens if they go somewhere or try to do something that you haven't anticipated. Anticipating things is good, but not always feasible.


----------



## Nagol (Jun 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> To be fair to him, maybe other ways just hadn't been explored that much yet. Clearly the hobby has changed since then.
> 
> That's very difficult to do though if the players do anything that is at all unexpected.
> 
> ...




In my experience, players rarely do what I expect them to do and the chances of them acting consistently is inversely proportional to the value consistency would provide them.

There are a couple of ways of resolving that and minimising DM bias.  

The first way is of course be prepared.  You don't necessarily need to know every potential detail of every location, but having a good grounding in the town demographics and security arrangements can give you a strong starting position to extrapolate should the players decide to go in an unexpected direction in the town whether that is an impulsive crime or off-the-wall information-gathering tactic or whatever.  

Second, consult the dice.  If there is a range available in what the PCs may encounter, announce it and then roll to determine where in the range the current situation falls.  If the roll determines a persistent fact in the universe, make a note in case it comes up again.  If the roll is to determine a current situation, make a note of the probabilities used in case the situation comes up again.  I'm also a big fan of announcing/recording the probabilities prior to rolling the dice to avoid the whole "I rolled a 10 that means what I want it to mean" syndrome.  

I hear a voice cry in my brain: "Aha, but your probability range will be based on your biases!" Yes to a point.  It will be based on whatever notes exist for the situation at hand (Hmm the area the PCs are in is the middle-upper-class section of the town.  The average wealth is 800 gp / household, this area has about double that say 1000 + 100 x1d10 gp,  What's the chance of the house belonging to a special NPC who hasn't had living arrangement detailed? M / N where M is the number of special NPCs likely to lodge in this area of town and N is the number of households of this type) and whatever precedent has been set in the past (a month ago the PCs found the town patrol does sweeps up the street every 20 minutes).  Anything completely not covered (what are the chances people are home at 2130 on a normal Saturday night? Umm 45%! How much of the household wealth is easily portable? 2d10%) needs to be made up on the spot -- but it informs the rest of the campaign.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 11, 2014)

the Jester said:


> To be fair, many many people think their way to play is *the* way to play.




Yep, I'm fair.  They're all wrong.  Most of them just don't write advice based on the flawed presumption.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 11, 2014)

Nagol said:


> Second, consult the dice.  If there is a range available in what the PCs may encounter, announce it and then roll to determine where in the range the current situation falls.  If the roll determines a persistent fact in the universe, make a note in case it comes up again.  If the roll is to determine a current situation, make a note of the probabilities used in case the situation comes up again.  I'm also a big fan of announcing/recording the probabilities prior to rolling the dice to avoid the whole "I rolled a 10 that means what I want it to mean" syndrome.
> 
> I hear a voice cry in my brain: "Aha, but your probability range will be based on your biases!"



I actually think that one of the least "biased" ways to determine the outcome of an open-ended situation is to roll a d%, look at the result, and ask "how does that make me feel?". Your interpretation of the dice is biased, but the dice themselves aren't.

***

As for preparation, I agree that this is one of the many purposes it serves, but I don't think it's realistic to chastise a DM who is unprepared for a situation. To some extent it may be attributable to the DM's lack of foresight, and to some extent the genuine unpredictability of the situation, but the bottom line is that stuff happens that you can't always be ready for, and you're going to have to fill in some blanks at the table, and the OP quote seems completely oblivious to this.


----------



## Manbearcat (Jun 11, 2014)

Schmoe said:


> That's a perfect explanation of the perspective, and one I can see working very well.  It puts the emphasis on the game as "the players vs. the dungeon" and puts the DM purely in the role of referee.  I've played games like this, admittedly not with D&D, and had a blast doing so.




Thank you.  It does work extremely well when done with proficient GMs and players.  This is not my preferred way for campaign play (and hasn't been for over a decade), but as a micro ecosystem (like one-off dungeon play), its extremely fun.  As   @_*Nagol*_  has been relating, its doable as a greater campaign in sandbox play, it just requires an extraordinary amount of GM-side prep work and the relevant question (with an ecosystem that large - region or world) become "is the payoff worth the prep?"  My answer to that has generally been no, as genre, pacing and other interests (several of my current GMing principles push against the principles embedded in this agenda) are subordinated to the interests that Pulsipher advocates for (and they, very often, cannot coexist).



Schmoe said:


> I think Pulsipher did a fine job of explaining the approach to take for that type of game.




I think so too.



Schmoe said:


> The only thing I don't like about Pulsipher's comments are his stance that other ways of playing the game are inappropriate or not enjoyable.






Umbran said:


> Yes.  I don't think most of us have an issue with that portion of it - *given* the agenda, the rest follows.
> 
> I think the real issue comes in how he seems to imply that's the only agenda, even *after* noting that said agenda isn't what most players seem to be pursuing.  That's weird.




Perhaps you guys are referring to the first paragraph where the blurb nature of the article doesn't allow him to elaborate, as might an essay, on the varying agendas and they are somewhat caricatured.  But only somewhat.  There is plenty of truth there.  It might seem less of a caricature if he wasn't writing a short article and was instead composing a thesis on various agendas.

If this opinion is driven by the rest of it, then I'm not so sure.  He clearly outlines (a) the agenda and (b) that he's outlining the principles and techniques for coherent and tight GMing in that specific play.  When he uses the term "incompetent" later on, he is applying it to a GM trying to max out his GMing ability within the scope of this agenda.  The "incompetent", therefore, may not apply to another style of play.

However, as I've written in another thread somewhere, I might be a little aloof to the potential of a strident tone to offend.  I'm not talking incendiary, just strident (I don't believe Pulsipher's piece even approaches anywhere near the realm of incendiary).  In that other thread, I relayed how I only recently realized that there was a vast swath of gamers who were royally turned off by Apocalypse World because of the tone of the work.  Conversely, they loved Dungeon World (even though its a D&D AW Hack) because of the tone.  I didn't even notice the difference in tone (outside of the colorfulness) until it was brought to my attention.  I was just assimilating the ruleset.  

Beyond that, different time and all and this is a British periodical with very different sensibilities than those of the mainstream popular cultures of modern western societies.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Good for you. However, the question remains in generic form, what happens if they go somewhere or try to do something that you haven't anticipated. Anticipating things is good, but not always feasible.




I think I know the environment very well.  The nature of the people/monsters, places, and things.   I realize if a player wants to throw a rope with a grappling hook and climb a wall I have to make a judgment call in some cases.  That sort of call though is based on a lot of data I have that enables me to make a good judgment.  I find that heavy ad libers are far more suspectible to bias.  Not all of them succumb so I'm not saying that but the job of saying unbiased is a lot harder.

I prepare plans for my monsters ahead of time to avoid bias.  That way if the group comes up with a neat idea I didn't anticipate I can with fairness assume the monsters didn't anticipate it either.  Depending on the monster I'm working with I will have better or weaker plans.  Dumb monsters shouldn't have great plans.  Smart enemies though should have decent plans.

I don't think it's that hard to provide a game that is for all intents and purposes unbiased.  Is it absolutely perfect?  of course not.  It's good enough that the players perceive they are being treated fairly and that is what matters.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 11, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I think I know the environment very well.  The nature of the people/monsters, places, and things.   I realize if a player wants to throw a rope with a grappling hook and climb a wall I have to make a judgment call in some cases.  That sort of call though is based on a lot of data I have that enables me to make a good judgment.
> ...
> I prepare plans for my monsters ahead of time to avoid bias.  That way if the group comes up with a neat idea I didn't anticipate I can with fairness assume the monsters didn't anticipate it either.  Depending on the monster I'm working with I will have better or weaker plans.  Dumb monsters shouldn't have great plans.  Smart enemies though should have decent plans.



That's quite a lot of planning. It's a luxury. I wish I had the same luxury, but I haven't for quite a while.



> I find that heavy ad libers are far more suspectible to bias.  Not all of them succumb so I'm not saying that but the job of saying unbiased is a lot harder.



I don't know about that. Hewing to preconceived notions of what the game is another kind of bias, and those preconceptions may very well relate to metagame concerns like the kind of DMing under discussion. Which maps to what we call railroading.

Balancing the need to think things out to avoid bias with the need to be flexible to avoid railroading is quite a challenge. It's part of learning to DM. A big part.



> I don't think it's that hard to provide a game that is for all intents and purposes unbiased.  Is it absolutely perfect?  of course not.  It's good enough that the players perceive they are being treated fairly and that is what matters.



I suspect most of us must run games that are "good enough" for our groups. Whether they would match up to the Pulsipherian ideal I doubt.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2014)

Shiroiken said:


> When designing adventures, you shouldn't put anything in there that would overbalance a single PC. Even if your wizard is way under powered, don't put a Staff of the Magi in, unless it's level appropriate



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.



Ahnehnois said:


> I would think that even a fairly dispassionate referee would need to lie to the players in occasional circumstances where NPCs are lying to the players



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.



Nagol said:


> I am willing to assume the author was trying to address DMs working at the table level as opposed to working with in-game motivations.  Rust monsters still leap at plate mail.  NPCs with sunder will treat it as an option.  Factions will try to further their agendas.  I don't think he is addressing that.



Agreed. He is talking about metagame-driven GM vendettas.



Ahnehnois said:


> Tsay a PC decides to try and rob a house. You were planning on an adventure elsewhere and didn't have any townspeople statted or know much about them or their protections or law enforcement.



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":

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 "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.



Umbran said:



			Most of them just don't write advice based on the flawed presumption.
		
Click to expand...


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&D. The similarities are surprising.​
He is clear in his preferences, but not unthinkingly dogmatic._


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 12, 2014)

pemerton said:


> 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.



What if, however, there's some kind of roll involved, a Bluff/Sense Motive? Then, the DM really has to be obfuscatory, unless he wants to actually say that the SM check failed. This may not have been an issue when the advice was written; I don't know what mechanical resolutions were typical for social deceptions back then.

As I noted, illusions and some enchantments also create this issue, because it isn't an independent NPC that is lying through dialogue, it is the character's own senses that are lying, through the DM's narration. Can a DM realistically parse things so that it's clear that he's describing the character's perceptual experience as distinct from acting as a referee for various things (including that character's perceptual abilities)? Unlikely, in my opinion.



> 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":
> 
> ...



_Which is what I said in my first post. His DMing advice requires the players to only act within the framework that the DM has pre-established. What is causing them to do that? Are they being forced in some way to go to the dungeon and not do something else? Is there a mutual agreement beforehand that this is what everyone wants to do and they won't do anything else?

In the absence of those types of restrictions, it's very difficult to imagine free-willed players acting within the mold he suggests. Maybe that's addressed elsewhere, but I struggle to understand DM advice that relies on players doing what the DM wants. They often don't._


----------



## MerricB (Jun 12, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> To be fair to him, maybe other ways just hadn't been explored that much yet. Clearly the hobby has changed since then.




The original article was published in White Dwarf #1 in 1977.

At this point, the RPG hobby on the wider scale was three years old. AD&D didn't yet exist. 

The games on the market were:
* Dungeons & Dragons
* Traveller
* Metamorphosis Alpha
* Chivalry & Sorcery
* Empire of the Petal Throne
* Bunnies and Burrows
* Melee
* Boot Hill
* En Garde!
* Superhero 2044
* Space Patrol
* Starfaring
* Monsters! Monsters!
* Tunnels and Trolls
* Space Quest

Most of those games were unfamiliar to everyone. This is the very dawn of the hobby and of D&D. 

1977. TSR had published no adventure modules. Wee Warriors had published Palace of the Vampire Queen, The Dwarven Glory and The Misty Isles. There were a couple of Tunnels & Trolls solo adventures. Tegel Manor was reviewed later in the year in White Dwarf. Blackmoor had the Temple of the Frog God... and that was it for adventures. There were no others on the market.

Incidentally, in another article from White Dwarf #1, another author complains
"There are many other problems [with D&D]: the expereince system gives greater benefit for finding treasure than for winning fights".

The context in which Lewis wrote these articles is terribly important. This isn't an article written this year. This is one written 37 years ago.

Cheers!


----------



## Henry (Jun 12, 2014)

I well remember Lew Pulsipher's articles, especially one of my favorites, the "be aware, take care" article from Dragon Magazine, where he gave the kind of advice you'd expect from one veteran mercenary to a newbie to try and keep him alive more than the first day. 

I also think there needs to be a little MORE of that thinking returning to the table - not to the "insane paranoid" level of "checking all coins in a hoard for numismatic value" or "prepare poison and smoke powder for the wizard to save spells through the power of suggestion" - but so many groups have been raised on the "guided tour" philosophy that if you present them with the smallest mystery, or one of the old Gygaxian puzzles like the circular stone holes with splinters in them from the AD&D 1 DMG, many players go blank, and just stop thinking.

Many, many, MANY parties of players i've seen wont even talk to form a coherent battle plan, they go in, each pick a separate enemy, and do their own thing, sometimes even getting in each others' way. Pulsipher in the Dragon Mag article used example of a group of fighters who charge into a grassy field to the enemy, another subgroup of the fighters and thieves sneaking in the grass, and a group of magic users who turn invisible and move around shooting fireballs. In his words, without communication, or even setting code signals or rendezvous, the enemy could leave the field and the party still might have friendly fire losses. I've seen this level of cooperation in actual play, and it's disappointing! For goodness' sake, even Monopoly needs more system mastery than that.


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 12, 2014)

MerricB said:


> The original article was published in White Dwarf #1 in 1977. (snip) This isn't an article written this year. This is one written 37 years ago.
> 
> Cheers!




Exactly.

Why try and parse statements written 37 years ago, particularly in a fairly negative fashion? Then again, perhaps we should post some of Gygax's "one true way" editorials from _Dragon_ and watch a few people go crazy. 

I sometimes think that DMing, and the philosophy behind it, is much like Bismarck's warning about never watching sausages or laws being made.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Jun 12, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Which is what I said in my first post. His DMing advice requires the players to only act within the framework that the DM has pre-established. What is causing them to do that? Are they being forced in some way to go to the dungeon and not do something else? Is there a mutual agreement beforehand that this is what everyone wants to do and they won't do anything else?



It's the same reason that the armies are required to fight each other in a wargame: because that's what the game is about. 

Even in a modern roleplaying context, I don't think it's at all unusual for a GM to say up-front: "This campaign is about [x], so make characters that fit into that."


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> I don't know what mechanical resolutions were typical for social deceptions back then.



There was a reaction table, influenced by CHA. Otherwise, I think the norm was free roleplaying.



Ahnehnois said:


> His DMing advice requires the players to only act within the framework that the DM has pre-established. What is causing them to do that? Are they being forced in some way to go to the dungeon and not do something else? Is there a mutual agreement beforehand that this is what everyone wants to do and they won't do anything else?



Yes, there is a mutual agreement. "Playing D&D" _means_ turning up with your PCs ready to enter a dungeon and explore it.

Gyagx's PHB (1978) makes a similar assumption (p 107):

[A]ssume that a game is schedule tomorrow, and you are going to get ready for it . . . [T]alk to the better players so that you will be able to _set an objective_ for the adventure. Whether the purpose is so simple as to discover a flight of stairs to the next lowest unexplored level or so difficult as to find and destroy an altar to an alien god, some firm objective should be established . . .​
Exploring a dungeon is the default assumption for play. Hence the short ranges on spells like Locate Object, and the inclusion of otherwise quite baroque magic items like Potions of Treasure Finding and Wands of Metal and Mineral Detection.



Scrivener of Doom said:


> Why try and parse statements written 37 years ago, particularly in a fairly negative fashion?



I don't think this was particularly directed at me, but as OP I thought I'd say a bit more about why I posted it.

I think this advice is interesting, and potentially helpful. It sets out a particular approach to play quite clearly (I think with greater clarity than Gygax does) and advises the participants on how they can best do things that way. It also diagnoses, 7 years before Dragonlance, the threat of railroading that comes with more story-oriented play. I think the diagnosis is sound, and I have suffered under GMs who would have benefitted from reading this.

That's not to say that I'm against story-oriented play. As I said in my OP, there are techniques that can make it work. But that doesn't change the fact that Pulsipher has accurately diagnosed a problem that was very real - and virtually dominant in the hobby from the late 80s through the 1990s.

Anyway, just to highlight some diversity of approaches from the early years, I'm going to start another thread with advice on similar topics from Roger Musson, another inveterate contributor to the early White Dwarfs.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I never knew of the author but his playstyle is exactly mine.





Henry said:


> I well remember Lew Pulsipher's articles, especially one of my favorites, the "be aware, take care" article from Dragon Magazine
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I also think there needs to be a little MORE of that thinking returning to the table



Thanks for the posts. Even though the article is very old, I think it still has relevance, and feel somewhat vindicated in that view by these responses.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 12, 2014)

Although he's not really into "story", Pulsipher does recognise the importance of what now would be called "fictional positioning" - ie the players engaging the game world _as if_ it were real, and extrapolating from the imagined reality in thinking through what is feasible, what would be sensible for their PCs to do, etc.

Consider, for instance, the following:

One of the most destructive notions I've encountered in _D&D_ is the belief that "anything goes". This is fine for a pick-up or silly-fun game, but contributes to an air of unreality and recklessness which can be fatal to a campaign . . . [A]n "anything goes" campaign tends to be one in which player skill counts for little . . . [because, inter alia] players have no foundation to base decisions on; never knowing what to expect, they cannot plan a rational response. . . . Even fantastic fiction, despite the name, possesses an internal self-consistency . . . Each referee must ask himself as he sets up his campaign what rules and items would seem believable if he read about them in a fantasy novel. . . .

Just because _D&D_ is a fantasy game doesn't mean you can forget logic. Don't put five Balrogs [in a] 20 by 20 foot lair. . .  Pretend you're a monster looking for a lair that is convenient and defensible, but you don't know specifically what might attack - men, animals, monsters, who knows? . . .

Many dungeons are full of occupied room which can be reached only through other occupied rooms. One wonders why none of the monsters fight each other . . . I have yet to hear a believable reason why they wouldn't fight; usually the excuse is that a thirtieth-level something-or-other runs the entire dungeon and won't let them. This is tantamount to saying that God Almighty has ordained that they shall not fight each other and shall only fight intruders. Why? No, it does not seem real.​
It seems pretty clear to me that the reason for emphasising "realism" is not aesthetic - it's not to improve the "story" - but rather as an element of game play. Skilled players engage the game via reasoning and problem-solving, and they can't do this if they can't reasonably extrapolate from the ingame situations that the referee describes to various possible courses of action. "Realism" in the set-up facilitates this.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 12, 2014)

Henry said:


> I also think there needs to be a little MORE of that thinking returning to the table - not to the "insane paranoid" level of "checking all coins in a hoard for numismatic value" or "prepare poison and smoke powder for the wizard to save spells through the power of suggestion" - but so many groups have been raised on the "guided tour" philosophy that if you present them with the smallest mystery, or one of the old Gygaxian puzzles like the circular stone holes with splinters in them from the AD&D 1 DMG, many players go blank, and just stop thinking.
> 
> Many, many, MANY parties of players i've seen wont even talk to form a coherent battle plan, they go in, each pick a separate enemy, and do their own thing, sometimes even getting in each others' way. Pulsipher in the Dragon Mag article used example of a group of fighters who charge into a grassy field to the enemy, another subgroup of the fighters and thieves sneaking in the grass, and a group of magic users who turn invisible and move around shooting fireballs. In his words, without communication, or even setting code signals or rendezvous, the enemy could leave the field and the party still might have friendly fire losses. I've seen this level of cooperation in actual play, and it's disappointing! For goodness' sake, even Monopoly needs more system mastery than that.




Henry, I feel you on this, but you offer zero reasoning as to why people should be forced to deal with "Gygaxian puzzles" (which were largely junk, in my experience, and designed to be metagamed by people who knew the solutions from previous, dead, characters, according to actual first-hand accounts of Gary's games), when they apparently want what you call "guided tours"?

I'm also curious, how have you come across these players, such that they cause you concern? Is this a "Kids today..." thing? 

Further, preparation and cooperation are two different things. I've seen groups who could form insane, terrifying ambushes with battle plans, but once things got real, none of them cooperated (they just trusted the wizard not to kill them, even as they stymied some of his plans by their positioning), and I've seen players who don't ever express a plan beforehand but cooperate magnificently and save the day in actual combat.

In fact, my experience is that people who are "planners" and people who are "team players" are actually opposed personality types for the most part, when it comes to D&D (less so IRL, but there's still a tension there).

But like I said, I feel you on this - I could see some more planning come back, some more equipment mattering, and so on (it's been largely irrelevant since 3E), I just wonder at the "why" on forcing tourist-y groups into Gygax-y situations, and how you've experienced that.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 12, 2014)

pemerton said:


> Yes, there is a mutual agreement. "Playing D&D" _means_ turning up with your PCs ready to enter a dungeon and explore it.



Pretty much what I thought.



			
				GX.Sigma said:
			
		

> Even in a modern roleplaying context, I don't think it's at all unusual for a GM to say up-front: "This campaign is about [x], so make characters that fit into that."



Sometimes, but I get very nervous about doing that. The character creation process is the part of the game where the characters have the most control and exert the most influence, so taking that away from them is a potentially tyrannical approach that will infuriate a lot of players.

That's why I think the advice is unfeasible in the modern age; how many people see D&D as being a game where you sign up to explore a dungeon anymore?


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 12, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> That's quite a lot of planning. It's a luxury. I wish I had the same luxury, but I haven't for quite a while.



This is why I tend to prep for my games far in advance of running one.  I may work six months on a campaign before even discovering who my players will be.  I put out a notice that I'm running a game and here is the flavor and ground rules.   Those interested opt-in.   I always have plenty wanting into the game.   I believe there are many ways in roleplaying to have fun so I'm not criticizing other approaches.  I am saying that my own style matches up with what Pulsipher says and I do that style really well.   I base that upon the demand to get into my campaign.





Ahnehnois said:


> I don't know about that. Hewing to preconceived notions of what the game is another kind of bias, and those preconceptions may very well relate to metagame concerns like the kind of DMing under discussion. Which maps to what we call railroading.



I do a sandbox and I never force my players down any path.   It's just like our real world.  I know if I jump off the roof I can't fly.  It's not a limitation on my freedom that gravity pulls me downward.  I present the players with a world.  It has rules and it works in a certain way.  I fill that world with interesting NPCs and monsters who have their own agendas.  The PCs are then totally free to do what they want within the context of the design of that world.  



Ahnehnois said:


> Balancing the need to think things out to avoid bias with the need to be flexible to avoid railroading is quite a challenge. It's part of learning to DM. A big part.



When I talk about thinking out things, I'm not talking about designing a single adventure that the group has to play.  I'm talking about designing and NPC and making sure that NPC plays appropriately to his intelligence and has a set of preplanned actions given certain events so that I am not tempted to unconsciously make a biased decision.  That NPC may never appear on stage in the game.  If the PCs turn left they might meet a totally different NPC and the first is never met.  I have no agenda when it comes to what the PCs do.  In fact I avoid like the plague any scenario like a "save the world" scenario.  I want the world to operate with or without the PCs input.  I want the PCs to affect the world but in the manner of their own choosing.




Ahnehnois said:


> I suspect most of us must run games that are "good enough" for our groups. Whether they would match up to the Pulsipherian ideal I doubt.



I think you are over thinking.  Many of us aim for perfection but no one hits it.  That does not mean though that that is not our goal.  I honestly believe that from what I read of the article that my game is very much the sort of game he is talking about.   I realize that I learned my playstyle from Gary Gygax and people of his philosophy (during the late 70's and 80's).  I made it work and work well so I haven't wanted to change it since.   

I want my players AND characters challenged.  I love puzzles and traps.  I love when the players figure out a way to totally turn a tough fight into an easy one.   I love when they use the dungeons traps against the inhabitants.  All of that sort of play is exactly the game I love.  I'm not saying others can't enjoy their own approaches.  I just have one that for me works great.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 12, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> This is why I tend to prep for my games far in advance of running one.  I may work six months on a campaign before even discovering who my players will be.  I put out a notice that I'm running a game and here is the flavor and ground rules.   Those interested opt-in.   I always have plenty wanting into the game.



That's another luxury in some ways. For me, and for a lot of us, we have a different luxury, which is that we have "the" players. Which is nice, but also means that when they show up, we have to work for them specifically, which is very different than having a static prepared game that people can choose whether or not to do.



> I do a sandbox and I never force my players down any path.   It's just like our real world.  I know if I jump off the roof I can't fly.  It's not a limitation on my freedom that gravity pulls me downward.  I present the players with a world.  It has rules and it works in a certain way.  I fill that world with interesting NPCs and monsters who have their own agendas.  The PCs are then totally free to do what they want within the context of the design of that world.



That really doesn't sound much like the Pulsipher idea wherein the players play within a fairly narrow framework. He doesn't sound like he's talking about a sandbox.



> When I talk about thinking out things, I'm not talking about designing a single adventure that the group has to play.  I'm talking about designing and NPC and making sure that NPC plays appropriately to his intelligence and has a set of preplanned actions given certain events so that I am not tempted to unconsciously make a biased decision.  That NPC may never appear on stage in the game.



That on some level is an ideal, but one that's very difficult to meet. To me, I look at an NPC as something that if I spent time on it, I damn well plan to use it. Now, I might not know when or how I'm using the character, but I don't consider the NPC as a static part of the game world who may or may not be in the players' path, because that is simply too much work on my part.



> I want my players AND characters challenged.  I love puzzles and traps.  I love when the players figure out a way to totally turn a tough fight into an easy one.   I love when they use the dungeons traps against the inhabitants.  All of that sort of play is exactly the game I love.  I'm not saying others can't enjoy their own approaches.  I just have one that for me works great.



That's fine; no argument there. For my part, I ran one real dungeon and have no desire to do it again, my players hate puzzles and traps (and so do I for that matter), and I run a wildly different game, both in process and content.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 12, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> That really doesn't sound much like the Pulsipher idea wherein the players play within a fairly narrow framework. He doesn't sound like he's talking about a sandbox.




I only read the snippet in the first post so if he said more elsewhere that is another matter.  Based on what he said in the post, he didn't address sandbox or not sandbox.  I was saying that if you play sandbox it can fit what he did say in that snippet very well.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2014)

Henry said:


> Many, many, MANY parties of players i've seen wont even talk to form a coherent battle plan, they go in, each pick a separate enemy, and do their own thing, sometimes even getting in each others' way.




*shrug*.  My experience is the opposite - parties that generally do too much planning, and then fines their plan falls apart in the face of the enemy. sop they used up a whole lot of game time in something that turns out to be useless.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 12, 2014)

Umbran said:


> *shrug*.  My experience is the opposite - parties that generally do too much planning, and then find their plan falls apart in the face of the enemy. So they used up a whole lot of game time in something that turns out to be useless.




It might be bad of me, but I generally enjoy when that happens. It's hard to remain impartial all the time. I keep failing my will save.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2014)

Sadras said:


> It might be bad of me, but I generally enjoy when that happens. It's hard to remain impartial all the time. I keep failing my will save.




My players don't enjoy it (either the process or the results) so I don't enjoy it.  It means my friends are not having as good a time as they otherwise might have.

This is not to say I care whether their plan will succeed or fail.  But they can fail without spending a third of the session figuring out exactly how they'll fail.


----------



## Baron Greystone (Jun 12, 2014)

As often happens, this debate is an example of deliberately taking an extreme position, and choosing to 'misunderstand' what others are saying.  There is a certain amount of fun in assembling a dungeon randomly, but isn't 'designing' a dungeon instead of rolling it randomly cheating?  All depends on how strict an adherent you want to be to the idea of "No DM interference."  There is a certain amount of fun in running a dungeon by rolling for everything that happens. But that can get dull for everyone.  Playing a game, even  a wargame, is fantasy. Escapism. With rules to make it somewhat more predictable than 'make-believe' games we played as children. Playing a fantasy is story-telling. Role-playing games are story-telling with rules. The goal of playing games is to have fun. "Fun" will be defined in different ways by different groups of people, who will gravitate to like-minded players.  So, this group thinks it's fun to actually tailor an adventure to its liking. A different group wants everything randomized. Each can start with the same rpg, and take in their own direction.  Honestly I don't see how one group can criticize another. Lew Pulsipher is a member of the industry with an august track record, but in the end, his tastes are subjective. And this is true of everyone.  Personally, I find that a conscioiusly-desiigned adventure is preferable, rather than something generated randomly. That includes trap placement, treasure, monster generation, background rationales, personalities and all.  When it comes to playing it through, I as a DM feel that 'the play's the thing.' If I need to tweak something in play, I will. Everyone should have fun, and fun means overcoming obstacles, risking death, for rewards like victory, fame, fortune.  I will not be a slave to the dice.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 12, 2014)

Schmoe said:


> That's a perfect explanation of the perspective, and one I can see working very well.  It puts the emphasis on the game as "the players vs. the dungeon" and puts the DM purely in the role of referee.  I've played games like this, admittedly not with D&D, and had a blast doing so.  I think Pulsipher did a fine job of explaining the approach to take for that type of game.
> 
> The only thing I don't like about Pulsipher's comments are his stance that other ways of playing the game are inappropriate or not enjoyable.




I hadn't really thought of this before, but the "players vs. the dungeon" style has an interesting dichotomy of strategic thinking. 

The DM expends all his tactical thinking in the set up, scripts monster/NPC actions, places loot and environment ahead of time, then minimizes adaptation. He's all strategic.

The players spend a small amount of time and energy planning and preparing, then execute their dungeon run reacting to the dungeon. Most everything they do is tactical.

Interesting.

PS


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 12, 2014)

Umbran said:


> My players don't enjoy it (either the process or the results) so I don't enjoy it.  It means my friends are not having as good a time as they otherwise might have.
> 
> This is not to say I care whether their plan will succeed or fail.  But they can fail without spending a third of the session figuring out exactly how they'll fail.




If planning doesn't improve the groups chances of success then of course it's not worth any time.  In my games with my players, planning is well worth the effort because it produces better results.  I'm not sure why the difference.

Is it because my players are smarter and come up with better plans?  Is it because I play the monsters straight and don't use metagame knowledge that those same monsters don't have?  Is it because I let the dice fall where they fall?  

I'm not sure.  It might be interesting to figure that out.  I mean when you think about it, planning seems intuitive if you want to win and you have the time to do the planning.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 12, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> If planning doesn't improve the groups chances of success then of course it's not worth any time.  In my games with my players, planning is well worth the effort because it produces better results.  I'm not sure why the difference.
> 
> Is it because my players are smarter and come up with better plans?




Do you really want to open this with questioning my players' intelligence?  Really?



> Is it because I play the monsters straight and don't use metagame knowledge that those same monsters don't have?  Is it because I let the dice fall where they fall?




I fudge only rarely, and I make sure my antagonists behave in ways that are entirely reasonable, given the information they have, thank you very much.  I try to pack my metagming into the design end, not the runtime end, as much as possible.

I'm running classic Deadlands.  The combat dynamic is much different from what you may be used to in D&D - the action economy is unpredictable, and without D&D's ablative hit points, combat is extremely swingy. This leads to things more than very basic plans tending to fall apart upon contact with the enemy.    The mechanics make Deadlands combat less about planning up-front, and more about adapting to change and new information mid-combat.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 12, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Do you really want to open this with questioning my players' intelligence?  Really?



Actually I thought I'd start with the absurd choice (still theoretically a possible one though) and work my way through the reasonable ones.



Umbran said:


> I fudge only rarely, and I make sure my antagonists behave in ways that are entirely reasonable, given the information they have, thank you very much.  I try to pack my metagming into the design end, not the runtime end, as much as possible.



Good that is exactly how I do it.



Umbran said:


> I'm running classic Deadlands.  The combat dynamic is much different from what you may be used to in D&D - the action economy is unpredictable, and without D&D's ablative hit points, combat is extremely swingy. This leads to things more than very basic plans tending to fall apart upon contact with the enemy.    The mechanics make Deadlands combat less about planning up-front, and more about adapting to change and new information mid-combat.



Well based on what you've said I suppose it could be the system.  I was honestly curious.  Let's make the question more straightforward to eliminate side distractions.   Suppose you played a traditional game of OD&D like they routinely played in the 70's.   Do you believe that planning would help or not?  If not then I am curious as to why it seems to be worthwhile in my case and not yours given we seem to have the same approach on so many things.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 12, 2014)

Storminator said:


> I hadn't really thought of this before, but the "players vs. the dungeon" style has an interesting dichotomy of strategic thinking.
> 
> The DM expends all his tactical thinking in the set up, scripts monster/NPC actions, places loot and environment ahead of time, then minimizes adaptation. He's all strategic.
> 
> ...




I think though that the players are often put in a situation where strategic thinking on their part was called for and paid off.  The group goes into a room and gets their butts kicked by the bad buy and has to flee.   When they get somewhere safe, they regroup and try to come up with a plan where they can mitigate the enemies advantages.   Pure strategic and very much a key part of the playstyle Pulsiper seems to be advocating for in that snippet.  It was a key style in the 70's for sure regardless.


----------



## Sadras (Jun 13, 2014)

Umbran said:


> My players don't enjoy it (either the process or the results) so I don't enjoy it.  It means my friends are not having as good a time as they otherwise might have.
> This is not to say I care whether their plan will succeed or fail.  But they can fail without spending a third of the session figuring out exactly how they'll fail.




The above sounds a lot more serious than I was anticipating. My line of thought was as an example, and it doesn't happen often, the party is aware of a BBEG and his crew is on the other side of the door, they decide on tactics (which is never a completely unanimous decision) and execute plan A,  only to discover that the tactics utilised were not ideal. One player will humourously bitch at another player for coming up with the decision, there will be some light ragging about how the "party leader" is incompetent, some laughs and play continues.



> I'm running classic Deadlands.  The combat dynamic is much different from what you may be used to in D&D - the action economy is unpredictable, and without D&D's ablative hit points, combat is extremely swingy. This leads to things more than very basic plans tending to fall apart upon contact with the enemy.    The mechanics make Deadlands combat less about planning up-front, and more about adapting to change and new information mid-combat.




As @_*Emerikol*_ mentioned perhaps our different experiences is a result of different systems. Even though we have curbed D&D's ablative hit points somewhat and reworked the healing spells, it might still be more swingy than Deadlands. Sadly, I'm not familiar Deadland's system.


----------



## lewpuls (Jun 13, 2014)

*30-some years see lots of changes*

Two and a half years ago I completed my book "Game Design: How to Create Video and Tabletop Games, Start to Finish" (McFarland, 2012).  Whenever I have occasion to look up something in it, I've been happy to find that I still agree with myself!

But agree entirely with something I wrote 30-some years ago, when game players had a different mind-set than nowadays?  Not so likely.

What do I mean when I say a different mind-set?  Hobby game players then (as opposed to mass-market/party gamers) mostly played games to overcome challenges and to earn what they received.  Most players now, especially influenced by video games and free to play video games in particular, play games to be rewarded for their participation.  In other words, consequence-based gaming is being replaced by reward-based gaming. People play not to gain something but to receive something. A secret door is not a situation to cope with or a clever obstacle, it's a dirty trick by the GM because it interferes with rewards. The old-school movement is one reaction against the newer point of view. My old view of D&D-as-wargame doesn't fit the newer point of view *at all*.

I'd expect a forum like this one has a higher-than-industry-standard proportion of people still interested in consequence-based gaming.  

Someday I'll combine all those old articles into a couple PDF books (100K words each, it appears).  But I haven't played RPGs (with one exception for old times' sake) in more than five years.  

Lew Pulsipher


----------



## pemerton (Jun 13, 2014)

[MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION]

Thanks for dropping by the thread!

For what it's worth, I still re-read those old columns every now and then and find interesting ideas in them. (Hence this thread.) And that is despite the fact that I probably count as more of a new-style than old-style RPGer.

So thanks, too, for a lasting contribution to the hobby!


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 13, 2014)

lewpuls said:


> Most players now, especially influenced by video games and free to play video games in particular, play games to be rewarded for their participation.



I hope that's not true. Hard to know.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 13, 2014)

lewpuls said:


> What do I mean when I say a different mind-set?  Hobby game players then (as opposed to mass-market/party gamers) mostly played games to overcome challenges and to earn what they received.  Most players now, especially influenced by video games and free to play video games in particular, play games to be rewarded for their participation.  In other words, consequence-based gaming is being replaced by reward-based gaming. People play not to gain something but to receive something. A secret door is not a situation to cope with or a clever obstacle, it's a dirty trick by the GM because it interferes with rewards. The old-school movement is one reaction against the newer point of view. My old view of D&D-as-wargame doesn't fit the newer point of view *at all*.




Lewis, first, welcome this thread, that's awesome! Second, with the greatest respect, I'm afraid this is utter nonsense. Two things jump out at me, as someone who has played TT RPGs since 1988, since long, long before F2P games or video games which rewarded mere participation (which, at earliest, can be traced back to the '90s), as obviously untrue:

1) You assert that there are these two opposed gaming styles - consequence-based, and reward-based, and that there has been a move from one, to the other. Unless you are claiming that this change happened prior to 1989 (and thus cannot have involved F2P games or the like), this demonstrably false.

Many people play RPGs neither to experience strategic/tactical consequences, nor to gain rewards (magic items, levelling up, and so on), but basically because they love the social experience of RPing. The success of games like Vampire, which isn't really about either of strategic/tactical consequences, nor about rewards, but more about the experience, is incredibly clear evidence of that.

Further, even if we accepted this consequence-reward track (which I don't think we should), most gamers are going to fall somewhere in the middle.

2) You assert that playing games "for rewards" is something new, that is "replacing" consequence-based gaming. This is completely wrong, I would suggest. The first D&D group I saw which was not my own, in 1989, was entirely about rewards. It was about magic items, gold and XP. No-one was interested in RP or characters or really in the world (even things like becoming a king or whatever tended to be forgotten in the pursuit of bigger and better rewards), nor were they interested in "consequences". This was older players, playing 1E, and who had been playing it since the early '80s.

Nor was this uncommon at all - I saw, heard of and read about many groups doing the same thing - basically playing D&D as a game to rack up a score - sometimes the DM would be sort of involved in helping them rack up the score, which usually got called "Monty Haul" gaming. (In fact the vast majority of 1E and '80s RPG-only groups I came across were like this - it was 2E groups and non-D&D groups who tended to be more interested in telling a story, in my experience.)

If you got these people to play an RPG where they couldn't rack up some kind of score, they rapidly got bored.

Remember, this is in the late '80s and early '90s. Computer games back then were quite punishing, typically, and whilst score-oriented, certainly didn't reward one merely for playing, and there were virtually no F2P games in the modern sense.

3) "Secret door is a dirty trick" - This is an interesting example on two levels - first, I first heard complaints about this sort of thing from said 1E group, in 1989, and second, it only makes sense in the context of a kind of score-based game where rewards are hidden behind the door, rather than a plot-based game. I can see from your comments thirty years ago, that, then at least, you studiously objected to plot-based games (such as one centered around a pre-determined mystery, for example Trail of Cthulhu), but that doesn't mean that someone objecting to a secret door that is found merely by chance and has no clues to it's existence is "demanding rewards" - he may merely have different expectations about how RPGs work to you (as I think virtually everyone does).

So, anyway, as someone who has watched RPGs evolve since the 1980s, I really don't think there is either a consequence-reward change, nor do I think that everyone you think is playing merely for "rewards" actually is - I think you're misperceiving other motivations entirely for gaming, and ignoring really, the whole evolution of RPGs through the '90 and '00s.


----------



## lewpuls (Jun 13, 2014)

*Hobby games, not just RPGs*

ruin explorer:

You've posed your answer largely in terms of (tabletop) RPGs.  My  statement encompasses all kinds of hobby gamers, and recognizes that  video games and gamers are far more pervasive than tabletop.  Of course,  Tabletop RPGs are now just one of many segments even of tabletop gaming  alone.  (You can easily make a case that we can see, in video games,  where tabletop games are going.  Not good.)

Consequently most of what you've said is aimed at something I didn't say, because I'm talking about a much, much larger group.

Whereas "vidiots" are video gamers who ignore tabletop when they talk  about games, I've coined the term (looking for one better) "tabledopes"  for tabletoppers who ignore video games when they talk about games.   Maybe (hearkening back to Muhammed Ali), "role-pa-dopes" would do for  RPGers who only talk about TT RPGs when generalizing about games.

Yes, video gaming was heavily consequence-based in the 80, especially  when the arcades were still strong and you could actually lose a video  game (in a sense).  Some of it still is.  But MMOs (which are frequently  RPGs) and F2Ps have led to the ascendance of reward-based gaming.  I  think this is more a symptom of a change in society (the entitled  generation), than a cause, but who can say for sure.

Another way to put this would be that games as interesting decisions are  being displaced by  games as wish fulfillment.  (See link to video  below.)

The secret door example comes from recent 4e play, actually, and not a  game I was involved in.   See the comments on a blog post that "weeped  for newbs", lamenting that even secret doors seem to be regarded as a  "dirty GM trick" in 4th edition D&D. (I'm not being allowed to post  links... so I cannot give you the reference) 

No, I don't like to be led around by the nose to follow a plot some GM  thinks (probably wrongly) is wonderful story-telling.  I'm playing a  game.  If I want a good fantasy story I'll read a novel or (with certain  reservations) watch a movie.  Just as, if I want to learn history, I'll  read a history book, not play a game.

You might listen to the following on my YouTub "Game Design" channel:
(Unfortunately I'm not being allowed to post links, so you'll have to go to youtube and search for the id)

Interesting Decisions versus Wish Fulfillment
The Evolution of Tabletop Games 
Evolution of Video Games Part 1 
Evolution of Video Games part 2

I've talked about this in more detail in my online video courses about game design, from which the latter three are excerpted.

Sorry I cannot post links, that is SO irritating.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 13, 2014)

[MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION]
Just an FYI that the ability to post links kicks in when your post count reaches a certain number, which I think is 10.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 13, 2014)

With regard specifically to secret doors, I'm quite sure that cRPGs have a variety of them. They're not necessarily in the form of a secret door, but rewards that are hard to reach for a variety of reasons are common. They're certainly not unknown in MMOs, as people who stagger around in SWtOR trying to find all the holocrons remember. You have to work out the trick to get the reward, though of course many web sites tell you how to do it.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 13, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> So, anyway, as someone who has watched RPGs evolve since the 1980s, I really don't think there is either a consequence-reward change, nor do I think that everyone you think is playing merely for "rewards" actually is - I think you're misperceiving other motivations entirely for gaming, and ignoring really, the whole evolution of RPGs through the '90 and '00s.




I tend to agree with RE here.  Moreover, I think there's use of language that has the effect of "hedging" - switching the meaning of a term mid-stream.

All "play" behavior seen in animals is reward based, neurobiologically speaking.  Our brains are built to give us good feelings from play, as a way of helping ensure we engage in play behavior.  Down deep, the drive to get those rewards is strong.

In differentiating between "consequence" and "reward" gaming, there's some rhetorical judo going on.  The person engaged in "consequence" play is made to seem somehow more virtuous, that this play style is somehow intrinsically superior.  But that's only a seeming, based on the linguistic trick of emphasizing the reward in one mode, and concealing it in the other.  But, make no mistake, the "consequence" gamer is just as reward driven as anyone else.

The only real difference is whether we save all the rewards for the end, or dole out the rewards in smaller doses along the way.  Either mode uses the same base reward mechinisms, in terms of brain function.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 13, 2014)

lewpuls said:


> ruin explorer:
> 
> You've posed your answer largely in terms of (tabletop) RPGs.  My  statement encompasses all kinds of hobby gamers, and recognizes that  video games and gamers are far more pervasive than tabletop.  Of course,  Tabletop RPGs are now just one of many segments even of tabletop gaming  alone.  (You can easily make a case that we can see, in video games,  where tabletop games are going.  Not good.)
> 
> Consequently most of what you've said is aimed at something I didn't say, because I'm talking about a much, much larger group.




I think calling video game players "hobby gamers" seriously misunderstands the prevalence of video games. Most video game players are not "hobby gamers" in any normal sense of the term.



lewpuls said:


> Whereas "vidiots" are video gamers who ignore tabletop when they talk  about games, I've coined the term (looking for one better) "tabledopes"  for tabletoppers who ignore video games when they talk about games.   Maybe (hearkening back to Muhammed Ali), "role-pa-dopes" would do for  RPGers who only talk about TT RPGs when generalizing about games.




Do you think vaguely abusive and sneering generalization about huge groups of gamers somehow help discussions? Personally, my experience dictates the precise contrary.



lewpuls said:


> Yes, video gaming was heavily consequence-based in the 80, especially  when the arcades were still strong and you could actually lose a video  game (in a sense).  Some of it still is.  But MMOs (which are frequently  RPGs) and F2Ps have led to the ascendance of reward-based gaming.  I  think this is more a symptom of a change in society (the entitled  generation), than a cause, but who can say for sure.




This "entitled generation" nonsense is just that. No generation in human history has been more literally "entitled" than the Baby Boomers, who are in their 60s or so now (I imagine your age is around here). This is not societal change, this is "GET OFF MY LAWN!" or "Kids today...", and Baby Boomers sneering at everyone younger than them is certainly a feature of current society.



lewpuls said:


> Another way to put this would be that games as interesting decisions are  being displaced by  games as wish fulfillment.  (See link to video  below.)




That's just wrong. You could have argued it five years ago,_ if _you limited it to video games only (not "all games"), but now? Laughably out of date and limited. Only MMORPGs (and not all of them!) fit that model well.



lewpuls said:


> The secret door example comes from recent 4e play, actually, and not a  game I was involved in.   See the comments on a blog post that "weeped  for newbs", lamenting that even secret doors seem to be regarded as a  "dirty GM trick" in 4th edition D&D. (I'm not being allowed to post  links... so I cannot give you the reference)




So something that's always happened in D&D also happened in 4E? And you are claiming this represents a change? Huh?



lewpuls said:


> No, I don't like to be led around by the nose to follow a plot some GM  thinks (probably wrongly) is wonderful story-telling.  I'm playing a  game.  If I want a good fantasy story I'll read a novel or (with certain  reservations) watch a movie.  Just as, if I want to learn history, I'll  read a history book, not play a game.




You appear to be unable to account for people who do want that, though. They don't fit your model.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 14, 2014)

I don't know about anything else but I definitely see an "easy" trend in gaming in general these days.  I do believe we have an entitled generation today.  And no I'm not 60.   I'm in my 40's.   

Prior to 3e, D&D was a hard game and death was easy.  At least in many campaigns.  At the launch of 3e onward the game gradually kept getting easier until we got to 4e where a competent group was practically unkillable unless the DM outright ignored anything remotely resembling the encounter rules.

When I roleplay, I definitely want a game that is "losable".  I want a game that challenges the PLAYER as well as the character.  Both.   I want it to be tough at least in my campaign.   With 3e, I had to work to keep this playstyle going.  In 4e it couldn't be done.   I am hopeful that 5e will give me a game I can play the way I'd like to play.   I'm not foolish enough to believe that anything I say can change the general trend of our society.   I just hope I can ride around the toilet long enough that I die before I go down the drain with the rest of society.   And yes I have kids and I weep for their future.  And yes I vote.  And yes I don't have much hope.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Jun 14, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I don't know about anything else but I definitely see an "easy" trend in gaming in general these days.  I do believe we have an entitled generation today.



I definitely see that trend in the published game. I wonder how true it is in what people actually play.

Even with regards to the published game, I don't think it's some inexorable force, simply a trend. If anything, I expect that over time it'll pass the point where it pisses people off and there'll be a push back the other way.


----------



## Savage Wombat (Jun 14, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> I definitely see that trend in the published game. I wonder how true it is in what people actually play.
> 
> Even with regards to the published game, I don't think it's some inexorable force, simply a trend. If anything, I expect that over time it'll pass the point where it pisses people off and there'll be a push back the other way.




Consider that the concept of "4e should be more lethal" is sufficiently widespread as to have a name - "fourthcore".


----------



## Henry (Jun 14, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Henry, I feel you on this, but you offer zero reasoning as to why people should be forced to deal with "Gygaxian puzzles" (which were largely junk, in my experience, and designed to be metagamed by people who knew the solutions from previous, dead, characters, according to actual first-hand accounts of Gary's games), when they apparently want what you call "guided tours"?
> 
> I'm also curious, how have you come across these players, such that they cause you concern? Is this a "Kids today..." thing?




That's perfectly fair, but I suppose in my mind it's like the difference between playing a bit of Liar's Dice, and playing Candyland. In Candyland, you're just going down the path with random chance injected, and with Liar's dice, you're mixing chance with a bit of tactics and challenge from your fellow players. Some Gygaxian puzzles were too much, I admit (Tomb of Horrors would teach me that, there are some parts that are like being chased through a minefield by a wild tiger who knows where the mines are).

As for where I've come across these players, it's been various groups over the past 20 years, some young, some same age as me. It's not just "kids these days", it's "kids my days" too. 



> Further, preparation and cooperation are two different things. I've seen groups who could form insane, terrifying ambushes with battle plans, but once things got real, none of them cooperated (they just trusted the wizard not to kill them, even as they stymied some of his plans by their positioning), and I've seen players who don't ever express a plan beforehand but cooperate magnificently and save the day in actual combat.
> 
> In fact, my experience is that people who are "planners" and people who are "team players" are actually opposed personality types for the most part, when it comes to D&D (less so IRL, but there's still a tension there).
> 
> But like I said, I feel you on this - I could see some more planning come back, some more equipment mattering, and so on (it's been largely irrelevant since 3E), I just wonder at the "why" on forcing tourist-y groups into Gygax-y situations, and how you've experienced that.




The why isn't "we must DO something," it's more "I'd love to see it happen." I have noticed for times I've gamed with former or current armed forces members, I tend to see a little more care for planning from players (for obvious reasons, I suppose) - maybe I just need to hunt around for more former military to game with. 

Last night in my Pathfinder game I saw a little of this -- our group was accosted in a narrow hallway by giant spiders who attacked not only at floor level, but climbing on walls too, and our group was somewhat paralyzed by the "stand and deliver" mentality, not thinking to retreat to either more cramped quarters and buffing our most heavily defended warrior, or to retreat to more open territory where area effects and ranged attacks could come into play. Taking my own advice, I took a few risky moves to both open up the corridor and to get into flanking position, but our first instinct was "stand and swing away where we were attacked" without coordination. This is a group of thirty, forty, and fifty-somethings, and we still almost fell prey to it.


----------



## Henry (Jun 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> *shrug*.  My experience is the opposite - parties that generally do too much planning, and then fines their plan falls apart in the face of the enemy. sop they used up a whole lot of game time in something that turns out to be useless.




Sounds like DMs who keep the party on their toes, to me. 

There can be too much planning just like NO planning -- but I'd like to see (and try to encourage) a little forward thinking among a group:

Make sure the sneak attackers have flank buddies
Don't be afraid to retreat to favorable ground, or even retreat completely if you're faced with overwhelming odds
Don't run into the middle of the enemy formation before you see where the wizard's placing his/her area effect spell
Make sure the party healer has nothing better to do than heal you before you even charge into your first combat (some clerics aren't just heal-bots as we know)
Don't swamp the boss with melee PCs forcing the ranged PCs into penalties
Just small simple things make a difference between acting like a bunch of boot campers and acting like a group that rightfully survived being rookies. In its own way, it's an issue of verisimilitude for me.


----------



## Henry (Jun 14, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The only real difference is whether we save all the rewards for the end, or dole out the rewards in smaller doses along the way.  Either mode uses the same base reward mechanisms, in terms of brain function.



I just have to disagree, but my explanation would turn into a deeper argument that brushes political and social commentary, so I won't. I'm not that old to start chasing people off my lawn, so not yet. 

I will say that  [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] it's awesome to see you stop by! I have a lot of fond memories of those old Dragon Mag articles _("want to find out if there's any evil dopplegangers in your party? Pass around some holy water and find out!" )_


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I don't know about anything else but I definitely see an "easy" trend in gaming in general these days.  I do believe we have an entitled generation today.  And no I'm not 60.   I'm in my 40's.
> 
> Prior to 3e, D&D was a hard game and death was easy.  At least in many campaigns.  At the launch of 3e onward the game gradually kept getting easier until we got to 4e where a competent group was practically unkillable unless the DM outright ignored anything remotely resembling the encounter rules.
> 
> When I roleplay, I definitely want a game that is "losable".  I want a game that challenges the PLAYER as well as the character.  Both.   I want it to be tough at least in my campaign.   With 3e, I had to work to keep this playstyle going.  In 4e it couldn't be done.   I am hopeful that 5e will give me a game I can play the way I'd like to play.   I'm not foolish enough to believe that anything I say can change the general trend of our society.   I just hope I can ride around the toilet long enough that I die before I go down the drain with the rest of society.   And yes I have kids and I weep for their future.  And yes I vote.  And yes I don't have much hope.




See, this is the thing that flies right up my nose.  No, it is not true.  It is flat out false.  3e is far, far more lethal than AD&D in combat.  The only reason AD&D combat is lethal is the prevalence of Save or Die mechanics.  In encounters lacking SOD, AD&D was almost always a cakewalk, with combatants coming out of the encounter without losing any HP.  3e combat is just very, very lethal.  An average creature deals 10 X CR in max damage in a single round.  By the rules, characters do not average 10 HP/Level.  

4e, yup, is a less lethal game.  Particularly if the DM isn't paying attention.  But, it is set up that way.  You don't get rocket tag in 4e.  To really challenge the PC's you need to have numerous encounters between rest periods. 

But the idea that AD&D was this brutal grindfest with death around every corner is a pernicious myth that does not stand up to any actual analysis.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 14, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> I definitely see that trend in the published game. I wonder how true it is in what people actually play.
> 
> Even with regards to the published game, I don't think it's some inexorable force, simply a trend. If anything, I expect that over time it'll pass the point where it pisses people off and there'll be a push back the other way.




I wonder how many PC's perished in Age of Worms (the Paizo AP).  It was known as a grind fest.  Actually, all the Paizo AP's for 3e were known for being grindfests.  

When I ran The World's Largest Dungeon for 3e, I permanently killed 26 PC's in 80 sessions.  All perfectly legit and rules legal.  Zero fudging and all die rolls done in the open.

The idea that the published game is getting easier is simply not true.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 14, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> Prior to 3e, D&D was a hard game and death was easy.  At least in many campaigns.  At the launch of 3e onward the game gradually kept getting easier until we got to 4e where a competent group was practically unkillable unless the DM outright ignored anything remotely resembling the encounter rules.
> 
> When I roleplay, I definitely want a game that is "losable".  I want a game that challenges the PLAYER as well as the character.
> 
> ...



I think that you over-generalise in this post.

(1) PC death is not the only loss condition in an RPG. There can be other mechanical loss conditions, and there can also be story loss conditions.

(2) Depending on rules for brining in new PCs, PC death may not even be a loss condition at all. It is if new PCs have to start again at 1st level, but that is not a common rule, I don't think. If a new PC comes in at much the same level and with much the same degree of story resources, then PC death isn't a loss, just a changel.

(3) 4e absolutely can lead to PC death even among competent groups. This is partially, but not solely, an issue of extend rest cycles.


----------



## Henry (Jun 14, 2014)

pemerton said:


> I think that you over-generalise in this post.
> 
> (1) PC death is not the only loss condition in an RPG. There can be other mechanical loss conditions, and there can also be story loss conditions.
> 
> ...




I know three things from my experience:


AD&D was deadly for another reason: Lack of DMs having ratings for level-appropriate challenges. Look at Steading of the Hill Giant Chief for a module that had few status effect monsters but overwhelming hordes of beasties that you had to handle with a little care if you didnt want to die quickly (even if half of 'em were drunk )
3E and family are Rocket-tag deadly, between save or die (still in there, and 3.0 was positively terrible about it! hello, Harm touch attack plus a dagger thrust!) and characters doing as mentioned 100 points or more in a round. I agree it was a worthy edition to the deadly lineage of D&D.
The first 4e death I saw was a PC running too cockily into a room with 4 ghouls and a ghast, and he got eaten in three rounds. Dropped to twice negative CON and torn to ribbons. Second was a party who didnt follow any common sense tactics, split the party into three combats, and had one guy hung on a yardarm by pirates after they beat him senseless.


----------



## Storminator (Jun 14, 2014)

Our 4e game is once a month, with some skipped months. So we're at about 40-45 sessions. 19 PC deaths, including 2 TPKs.

PS


----------



## Libramarian (Jun 15, 2014)

It's cool that [MENTION=30518]lewpuls[/MENTION] showed up in this thread 

This  describes my approach to DMing really well. I'm just recently beginning  to move beyond it in realizing that how appropriate it is for the DM to  make something up on the spot slides up or down based on how close it  is to affecting the PC's HP, GP or XP. I never fudge dice rolls in  combat or alter the value or location of treasure on the fly, almost  never override morale or surprise rolls, rarely but sometimes override  encounter or perception-type rolls, and make up lots of stuff during  social/town encounters. I always make sure the players know my general  approach, even if they don't know whether I'm deciding a particular  thing randomly or by fiat. When I do "massage" the game in a particular  direction it's not to produce a better story but to customize the game  to my players' ability and create a smoother learning curve for them.  Like a guitar teacher altering their lesson plan to make learning to  play a little smoother and more enjoyable for their student. If I want  to make an adventure easier then I generally give the players more  information rather than alter encounters or fudge rolls.

Regarding the tendency of hands-off DMing to lead to the occasional  boring session, I think you should always try to solve this with better  game content first. If you put something interesting in every direction  then you don't need to guide the players to the interesting thing (my  dungeons have far fewer empty rooms than those produced by the random  generator in the 1e DMG). The DM doesn't need to fudge to get the  players out of difficult situations if the players can retreat or  activate an "ejection seat" type ability to escape at a cost. Obviously  it's best for these to take the form of in-game abilities but if  necessary fate/luck points serve the same purpose.

I definitely  think that if you're going to run a sandbox, you need to make the  gameworld unrealistically dense with interesting stuff. Making the  gameworld more realistic broadens the scope of player strategy but the  returns diminish pretty steeply I think. As long as each "encounter"  makes sense and responds logically to player interaction I think that  gets you 95% of the way there. I don't think that monster ecosystems and  architecturally realistic dungeon layouts add anything significant to  gameplay. I think the old school gonzo dungeon is right in the sweet  spot here. Fortunately I've found that aesthetically my players also  care most about the immediate details (e.g. if I describe a ghoul in a  sufficiently creepy way they don't care how it got there).


----------



## Libramarian (Jun 15, 2014)

lewpuls said:


> Yes, video gaming was heavily consequence-based in the 80, especially  when the arcades were still strong and you could actually lose a video  game (in a sense).  Some of it still is.  But MMOs (which are frequently  RPGs) and F2Ps have led to the ascendance of reward-based gaming.  I  think this is more a symptom of a change in society (the entitled  generation), than a cause, but who can say for sure.




I agree that this change is taking place, but I don't think it's because today's generation is more entitled, I think it's because whenever a form of entertainment becomes more economically sophisticated the highs and lows get levelled off and it starts catering to the lowest common denominator, because people who love something and people who merely find it pleasant pay into it pretty much the same, while people who hate it don't pay at all. So it generally makes more sense to create something that everybody finds pleasant enough rather than something that some people love and some people hate.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 15, 2014)

Libramarian said:


> The DM doesn't need to fudge to get the  players out of difficult situations if the players can retreat or  activate an "ejection seat" type ability to escape at a cost. Obviously  it's best for these to take the form of in-game abilities but if necessary fate/luck points serve the same purpose.



Could you give some examples of in-game "ejection seat" options?


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 15, 2014)

pemerton said:


> Could you give some examples of in-game "ejection seat" options?




I can't give his examples, but I'm familiar with the general concept - group teleports, especially ones which also pull dead/dying people with them are an in-game-type ability along those lines - especially if they have some kind of consequential cost. You can get away but it costs you. The problem with these is that many games, including D&D, tend to limit abilities like this to spellcasters, and to the higher levels, when the situations most likely to require them actually occur in the mid-levels (in my experience).

Shadowrun 5E has a very clear one - you can burn a point of permanent Karma (which is stat, raised like any other, in 5E), to guarantee to survive any one otherwise-fatal event (like falling out of an aeroplane) - the way it's described really seems like it's intended that the GM let you "get away", too, not just avoid death for a single round or whatever.

My memory is failing me, but I'm pretty sure there are other games out there which allow you to burn permanent resources/gain in order to survive something.

Of course what may also be meant is the less-literal aspect of "ejector seat" mechanics - but one which prevents the need to fudge even more - that you can use Fate/Luck points to negate "OH SHEEZ!" bad rolls that would really have suggested DM fudging back in the day. In fact, this is particularly good because it also encapsulates the "Well, if you screw up enough times..." model of DM fudging, where eventually the DM stops fudging because the PCs keep screwing up - because Fate/Luck/Karma points are limited, eventually they will have to face the music if they don't get their act together.

I'd never really thought that through before - but that's why I find I never or almost never have to fudge in games which include such points, because they've taken the fudging away (and the judgement of when fudging has gone too far!) and effectively given it to the players.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 15, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Shadowrun 5E has a very clear one - you can burn a point of permanent Karma (which is stat, raised like any other, in 5E), to guarantee to survive any one otherwise-fatal event (like falling out of an aeroplane) - the way it's described really seems like it's intended that the GM let you "get away", too, not just avoid death for a single round or whatever.




FATE has one as well - conceding a conflict.  If the player realizes they are on the losing side of a confrontation, rather than continue and lose, the player may concede.  They take a "Consequence" (and in-game issue that will persist for a while), but they survive, and get to choose what their consequence will be.  Basically, in FATE, the player can lose on their own terms, rather than the enemy's.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 15, 2014)

Henry said:


> That's perfectly fair, but I suppose in my mind it's like the difference between playing a bit of Liar's Dice, and playing Candyland. In Candyland, you're just going down the path with random chance injected, and with Liar's dice, you're mixing chance with a bit of tactics and challenge from your fellow players. Some Gygaxian puzzles were too much, I admit (Tomb of Horrors would teach me that, there are some parts that are like being chased through a minefield by a wild tiger who knows where the mines are).




Sadly I have never played Liar's Dice, nor Candyland, and even reading about them this comparison is somewhat lost on me. I take it Candyland is _not_ similar to say, The Game of Life (because you have actual decisions in the latter), but is more akin to Snakes & Ladders or something, where it's pure chance?

The big problem I had with Gygaxian dungeons is that a lot of them seemed to just encourage ultra-cautious. ultra-methodical play, which felt absolutely nothing like the tales of fantasy and derring-do I'd been raised on. I came to D&D to play a brave knight (completely seriously, this is what made 10-year-old-me's eyes open so wide when D&D was described), but when I played with people running "Gygaxian" stuff (mostly not written by Gygax, but of that style), it seemed like brave knights and their ilk had no place - rather it was a game of methodical, potentially-backstabbing and heartless professionals, willing to sacrificing henchmen without blinking, who took their 10' poles, their torchbearers and so on, and carefully, slowly, and sadly, somewhat tediously crept through a dungeon.

Often these fellows would have alignments like LG, but in no way did they seem to act the part, unless required to by the DM or their character class (even with the latter, it was typically begrudging).

I think it's one thing to encourage people to plan before battle where possible (but it shouldn't always be possible), and act like smart people who want to live, but it's quite another to traumatize players until they're living in what some have described as "Fantasy F**king Vietnam". All too often "Gygaxian" is code for either that, or terrible puzzles that make no sense in context.

I mean, ignoring the "FFV" aspect, personally, as someone who always loved archaeology and history, a lot of so-called "Gygaxian" stuff drove me nuts because it didn't make any sense - who built this? Why did they build it? Why is it still operational? If I couldn't at least answer those questions for myself, it wasn't going in my adventures, and I didn't like it much when others put it there (this design problem is still a common one - 4E's H1 and H3 had huge problems with "Even in this bizarre context, this makes no sense and even contradicts the lore of the dungeon!" - H3 was explicitly designed as Gygaxian, too)



Henry said:


> As for where I've come across these players, it's been various groups over the past 20 years, some young, some same age as me. It's not just "kids these days", it's "kids my days" too.




Fair enough! 



Henry said:


> The why isn't "we must DO something," it's more "I'd love to see it happen." I have noticed for times I've gamed with former or current armed forces members, I tend to see a little more care for planning from players (for obvious reasons, I suppose) - maybe I just need to hunt around for more former military to game with.
> 
> Last night in my Pathfinder game I saw a little of this -- our group was accosted in a narrow hallway by giant spiders who attacked not only at floor level, but climbing on walls too, and our group was somewhat paralyzed by the "stand and deliver" mentality, not thinking to retreat to either more cramped quarters and buffing our most heavily defended warrior, or to retreat to more open territory where area effects and ranged attacks could come into play. Taking my own advice, I took a few risky moves to both open up the corridor and to get into flanking position, but our first instinct was "stand and swing away where we were attacked" without coordination. This is a group of thirty, forty, and fifty-somethings, and we still almost fell prey to it.




I don't think it has much to do with either armed forces or 1E/Gygaxian experience, though, Henry. It's more to do with the mindsets of the specific players. I have a main group (all in their 30s) who are a lawyer, a very senior doctor, a day-trader, a journalist, and a systems analyst/IT manager, and occasionally a diplomat/entrepreneur. All of these people lead very organised lives and have to think very hard about what they are doing, plan ahead and so on, in their work. None of them have any armed forces experience. Yet in game, those who plan most, those who scheme most and so on does not correlate well with their work or lives. I could go into details but we'd be here all day - suffice to say, some people enjoy planning/scheming, some people enjoy tactics, some enjoy both, some neither. What they all share is a love of RPGs.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 16, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> Sadly I have never played Liar's Dice, nor Candyland, and even reading about them this comparison is somewhat lost on me. I take it Candyland is _not_ similar to say, The Game of Life (because you have actual decisions in the latter), but is more akin to Snakes & Ladders or something, where it's pure chance?




*Candyland* is pure chance. A deck of cards is shuffled at the beginning of the game, and on a player's turn, they draw the top card and move to the space indicated. (Generally forward due to the colour of the card). When someone passes the finish line, they win. 

*Liar's Dice* is a game of bluffing. Each player begins with five dice. Each player rolls their secretly, then in turn each player chooses either to make a guess about the current state of the game or accuse the previous guess of being incorrect. When an accusation is made, the round ends and the dice are compared - if the guess was correct, the accuser loses one die, otherwise the liar loses one die. The game ends when only one player has dice remaining. 

Each guess says that there are a certain number of a certain side currently in the game. So, "Four of the dice show fives" or "Two sixes". A new guess must be higher than the old - either in the number of dice used or the face showing. So "Four fives" could be improved by "Five threes" or "Four Sixes" but not "Four threes". Obviously, at some point the statement as to what's left will become impossible.

What makes it such an interesting game is that the bids let you know something about what dice everyone has, unless, of course, they were deceiving you. 

Cheers!


----------



## Libramarian (Jun 16, 2014)

pemerton said:


> Could you give some examples of in-game "ejection seat" options?




I'm thinking of consumable magic items, like potions of climbing, flying, gaseous form, invisibility or invulnerability. I sometimes call items like this that function offensively rather than simply letting the PCs escape "grenades". That would be more like a potion of heroism or rods/staves/wands with very powerful (relative to current PC level) effects and a limited number of charges.

I love these because they don't affect the power level of the PCs most of the time, because the players don't want to use them unless they absolutely need to. The effect they have is they give the players a better chance to survive encounters that turn out to be surprisingly difficult, reducing the pressure on me as DM to balance encounters or fudge things to get them out of a jam.


----------



## Libramarian (Jun 16, 2014)

Ruin Explorer said:


> The big problem I had with Gygaxian dungeons is that a lot of them seemed to just encourage ultra-cautious. ultra-methodical play, which felt absolutely nothing like the tales of fantasy and derring-do I'd been raised on. I came to D&D to play a brave knight (completely seriously, this is what made 10-year-old-me's eyes open so wide when D&D was described), but when I played with people running "Gygaxian" stuff (mostly not written by Gygax, but of that style), it seemed like brave knights and their ilk had no place - rather it was a game of methodical, potentially-backstabbing and heartless professionals, willing to sacrificing henchmen without blinking, who took their 10' poles, their torchbearers and so on, and carefully, slowly, and sadly, somewhat tediously crept through a dungeon.



This is a bit exaggerated but not entirely unfair. I think it's important that planning helps but never totally eliminates risk. Or else planning incurs its own risk (e.g. more wandering monster rolls for taking too long). It's a bit of a tricky balance because it depends on the players and their attitudes towards risk. Good DM-player chemistry makes for a much faster moving game. Not every old style dungeon is like the Tomb of Horrors. I actually think that PCs are supposed to be pretty confident in pure combat situations. In my games I'm moving towards more of a hack and slash style to combat encounters. As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out AD&D monsters are actually pretty weak in general. This makes it hard to put together good "solos" but it works well for lair battles where the last room has two dozen orcs to carve through.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 16, 2014)

Libramarian said:


> I'm thinking of consumable magic items, like potions of climbing, flying, gaseous form, invisibility or invulnerability.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I love these because they don't affect the power level of the PCs most of the time, because the players don't want to use them unless they absolutely need to. The effect they have is they give the players a better chance to survive encounters that turn out to be surprisingly difficult, reducing the pressure on me as DM to balance encounters or fudge things to get them out of a jam.



The last of these sorts of things I remember from my 4e game was a Ring of Wishing (single wish). The PCs brought it out when they were in a difficult fight against a powerful NPC wizard (mechanically, a solo a level or two above theirs, at the end of a reasonably long series of encounters without an extended rest). The wizard had a range of powerful blinding effects, which were hurting the PCs badly. So they wished that no one in the great hall (where the fight was taking place) could be blinded for the next hour. The resultant immunity to the NPC's debuff helped them win the fight.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 16, 2014)

Libramarian said:


> This is a bit exaggerated but not entirely unfair. I think it's important that planning helps but never totally eliminates risk. Or else planning incurs its own risk (e.g. more wandering monster rolls for taking too long). It's a bit of a tricky balance because it depends on the players and their attitudes towards risk. Good DM-player chemistry makes for a much faster moving game. Not every old style dungeon is like the Tomb of Horrors. I actually think that PCs are supposed to be pretty confident in pure combat situations. In my games I'm moving towards more of a hack and slash style to combat encounters. As [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has pointed out AD&D monsters are actually pretty weak in general. This makes it hard to put together good "solos" but it works well for lair battles where the last room has two dozen orcs to carve through.




I don't disagree.

If it seems a bit exaggerated, I suspect that's the groups I played with back then - some were mostly hardened 1E players, and gosh did they make everything into grim trudge, out of a combination of fear of getting killed/ambushed (more by traps and save-or-die monsters than normal combat encounters - in fact they were somewhat devil-may-care about those unless they involved save-or-die or save-or-suck monsters, not that we called them that back then), and fear/greed of missing some sort of hidden-but-fantastic reward. I feel like there was a bit of a culture that continued on well into the '90s that self-reinforced and normalized this behaviour, too, to the point where people who'd never played 1E or been in a Gygaxian dungeon would sometimes emulate it because they thought that was "how it was".


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 16, 2014)

IMX, "that's how it was" because meta-gaming was verboten & DMs tended to try to "win" by defeating the Players with traps, SOS & SODs. 

The only way to survive that combo, for my group (when I was still a player), was to pixel-bitch - to go over every square inch of dungeon with an 11ft pole. 

It wasn't until much later that I realized that's a crappy and boring way for me to play. Now, as DM, I don't mind meta-gaming and I'm not out to defeat players or win. My objectives are to deliver a fun game session and engage the players emotionally.  My players (many of whom are reformed pixel-bitchers) have embraced this enthusiastically. 

So I'll do a dungeon crawl, but instead of "gotcha" traps and ambushes, I openly frame the challenges so the players can make intelligent decisions on what to do about it. This means SODs & SOS are in, but instead of requiring meticulous play to avoid missteps and make sure you don't stumble into anything, I take that burden to let you know what the hazard is, what shape it will take, and when it becomes an imminent peril - then it's up to you to deal with it. No gotchas. Better trust. Fun sessions.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 16, 2014)

lewpuls said:


> ruin explorer:
> 
> You've posed your answer largely in terms of (tabletop) RPGs.  My   statement encompasses all kinds of hobby gamers, and recognizes that   video games and gamers are far more pervasive than tabletop.  Of course,   Tabletop RPGs are now just one of many segments even of tabletop  gaming  alone.  (You can easily make a case that we can see, in video  games,  where tabletop games are going.  Not good.)
> 
> ...




Video gaming was insta-death in the 80s _because that was the best way to get people to buy continues_.   However in the 80s entertainment was generally much more passive than  it is today; say what you like about Mass Effect 3 and its really  irritating linearity and mockery of "insanity" level (and about the  Starchild - but that's a rant for another time), there is a boatload  more challenge to Mass  Effect 3 than to watching another episode of The  A Team however much fun that is.  And that is what you are seeing all  over the place.  _Video games are now bigger than Hollywood_.   The people who would have been watching films in the 70s and 80s are now  playing video games.  You think that there's little challenge to a best  selling video game?  Compare it to _ET_ or _Raiders of the Lost Ark_.   (And those aren't bad films).  Halfassing it on casual mode in a Star  Wars game is still a massively bigger challenge than watching Luke  Skywalker on the screen.

As for hardcore players?  They get a far _far_  more intense experience than they ever used to.  PVP against anything  up to the best in the world.  Either EVE Onlne or Starcraft II take much  more at just about all levels because the level of competition is so  much higher.

The arcade?  I've played some of those old arcade  games - and for all Pacman is a great game, you're doing the same thing  over and over faster and faster until you fail.  The same in Space  Invaders.  The challenge doesn't compare to an evolving challenge like _Starcraft_  where the game gets more complex and intricate on you and rather than  having you use the same skills better, you need more breadth as well as  depth.  And you're up against a human.  You can't predict that that  #@&% red ghost will always be aimed ahead of you in Starcraft.

You  want to talk about no chance of failure?  That's not Modern D&D.   That's 30 year old D&D.  Mid 80s.  Dragonlance's Obscure Death  Rule.  Right there in the rules. And the 90s were advocating fudging the  rules whenever they got in the way, frequently in the players' favour.   And the endless ascent of levels?  _MMOs took them from D&D_.

You  want to talk about hard mode?  The first time Tomb of Horrors was  played it was cleaned out with no casualties.  That's not hard mode.   Braid is far tougher.  For that matter so is Portal (and Portal ain't  that hard).

You want to talk about the entitled generation?  As a  boomer (I assume) you should look in a mirror.  And broadening the  appeal so more people get challenge based games doesn't dumb them down.   It means that the market is larger.

And the reward based play isn't primarily from MMOs.  It's from Zynga/Farmville and other such games, and from iphone/android games.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 17, 2014)

Bawylie said:


> IMX, "that's how it was" because meta-gaming was verboten & DMs tended to try to "win" by defeating the Players with traps, SOS & SODs.
> 
> The only way to survive that combo, for my group (when I was still a player), was to pixel-bitch - to go over every square inch of dungeon with an 11ft pole.
> 
> ...




This is a good presentation of the modernist position on old school gaming.  If my games were like yours perhaps I'd be wanting out myself.  

Here though is why you are wrong in general about the playstyle
1.  The DM is not supposed to be adversarial.  He is supposed to play the bad guys fairly which can be confusing for some including DMs.

2.  Gotchas are great if they are indicative of a lack of preparation or planning by the party.  They are in fact a test of said things.  We avoided any slowdown of our games though because we had standard marching orders and various predefined protocols that the group just announced.  We had cautious advance, standard advance, and speedy advance.   We chose based upon the situation.   Personally I feel that this style of play feels real to me because no way am I going through an adventure full of traps and not checking for them.  Perhaps some people failed to figure out this time saving approach.

3.  The use of old school player challenging approaches has nothing to do with emotional connection.  You can be emotionally connected and really into the story either way or you can not be.   That would also depend on how well the DM brings it all together.

4.  For me and my group, meta-gaming though is a sure fire way to lose any emotional connection or any suspension of disbelief.   In my view contriving a situation is not fun or suspenseful.  The players knowing everything makes the whole point in many cases moot.   

For me D&D is about adventures into the unknown, the exploring of mysterious and exciting locations.  In time you take all that treasure you've earned and you begin to affect the world around you on a larger scale.


----------



## Bawylie (Jun 17, 2014)

I wasn't saying anything about "the play style." I was talking about games I played in while growing up - so I'm not wrong about my own experiences. 

As for the rest:

1.) A lot of published works give advice to DMs that they shouldn't look at their relationship to players as adversarial. You're right: It's not supposed to be. But that advice didn't just spring up out of a vacuum. 

2.) Surprises aren't gotchas. Gotchas are when the DM looks for any chinks in your plan or SOP and then exploits that, regardless of whatever has already been established. Or modifies his challenge to circumvent your plan altogether. You've got a fighter with high AC fighting a troll while a rogue stands by with a torch. The troll can't hit the fighter - until the DM says he pulls out a Wand of True Strike & a potion of fire resistance. Nevermind he's only wearing a loincloth. That's a gotcha. 

3.) I was talking about how I changed my approach to the game - not criticising the old school approach for lack of emotional connection. I'm talking about shifting my personal focus. 

4.) I got "called" for meta-gaming whenever I made intelligent decisions so the DM could make my character do something stupid, instead. "How do you KNOW trolls are vulnerable to fire?" "Why would you search for a trap here?" I don't know - maybe trolls are common enough to know something about and maybe every time I don't search for a trap, you hit me with one. Then complain how I'm meta gaming because I've been conditioned to fear abuse. Jaysus! 
4b.) So now I give my players all the relevant information so they can make informed decisions. Fear of actual consequences instead of the unknown. Maybe fear of the unknown is better for you. I get plenty of mileage doing what I'm doing. So meta-game. Think. Plan. Do whatever you can to win. This IS a game - and we're playing in it. 

D&D is that for me, too. And being honest about what the players see & setting expectations fairly doesn't detract from that. Conniving, withholding, gotchas, these break trust.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 17, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> 1.  The DM is not supposed to be adversarial.  He is supposed to play the bad guys fairly which can be confusing for some including DMs.




Strict, but neutral, use of the rules still leads to the pixel-bitching.  

And, my understanding of the origin of the Tomb of Horrors rather speaks against the neutral stance - if the GM is creating an adventure to prove the players wrong or humble them, that's adversarial.



> Personally I feel that this style of play feels real to me because no way am I going through an adventure full of traps and not checking for them.  Perhaps some people failed to figure out this time saving approach.




If the issue is supposed to be a test, and the players find a solution and implement it, that test should then be over, and you should move on to another test.  Continuing to apply the same test *forever* (using the published modules as a guide to intended play - the traps exist over all levels of play) is not adding interest or challenge to the game. 

I think there was an issue here, in that general play seems to have been influenced by tournament play - tournament play is a scored test, where you are tying to beat other players.  In that situation, "testing the players" makes some kind of sense.  Outside the tournament, you are no longer trying to score the players against a large group doing the same thing.  You are testing the players against the others in their party or against the GM.  

The former can lead to backstabbing, and arguing over gold and treasure (as GP = XP!), and the latter tends to lead to the antagonistic player-GM relationship.  While it is entirely possible to not have these things develop, they are natural human paths to take in the situation presented by the rules and adventures in question.  If non-antagonism was really desired, the game could have been designed a lot better to avoid it.



> 4.  For me and my group, meta-gaming though is a sure fire way to lose any emotional connection or any suspension of disbelief.   In my view contriving a situation is not fun or suspenseful.  The players knowing everything makes the whole point in many cases moot.




And this is a common over-statement of what metagaming means in this context.  Knowing to allow others to have spotlight time is metagaming, for example, but it has nothing to do with contriving situations, or knowing everything. 



> For me D&D is about adventures into the unknown, the exploring of mysterious and exciting locations.  In time you take all that treasure you've earned and you begin to affect the world around you on a larger scale.




Which has little to do with the old-school/modernist divide, in my experience.  Some of the best exploration of the unknown, and mysterious and exciting locations I've ever done was in a recent Spirit of the Century game - and FATE is most assuredly not old-school in its construction.


----------



## Emerikol (Jun 17, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Strict, but neutral, use of the rules still leads to the pixel-bitching.
> 
> And, my understanding of the origin of the Tomb of Horrors rather speaks against the neutral stance - if the GM is creating an adventure to prove the players wrong or humble them, that's adversarial.



Well I do consider the Tomb of Horrors really hard and I wouldn't want a group to try it unless they really wanted to put their characters at serious risk.  On the flip side, I do not consider it a bad adventure given fair warning.   Some groups like a really hard challenge.   

I am not anti-pixel bitching as you call it (we need a less loaded term for sure).  I and my group want to be rewarded for caution and thoughtful play.  The DM creates a world that is challenging to the players as much as it is to the characters.   For some thats good and for some it's bad.   I only get my dander up when people proclaim the new way as better universally instead of just better for them.

Plenty of people have just kept plodding along using the same playstyle they fell in love with at the beginning.  I know that with 3e and 4e I kept trying to get it to work the way it used to work.   With 3e it was very hard.  With 4e pretty much impossible.   That doesn't mean those games didn't work okay for somebody.   Just not for my playstyle.




Umbran said:


> If the issue is supposed to be a test, and the players find a solution and implement it, that test should then be over, and you should move on to another test.  Continuing to apply the same test *forever* (using the published modules as a guide to intended play - the traps exist over all levels of play) is not adding interest or challenge to the game.



It's not a test like a math test.   Dungeons are full of traps for a very logical reason.  The owners want to protect their stuff.  A lack of traps wouldn't make sense.  I strive for a world that makes sense.  

As the group levels up, the traps become harder to catch.  Standard pixel bitching won't work every time.  Still, if a DM completely dropped pit traps for example from his game at 3rd level, then some players are bound to metagame that fact and not take the time (in game time) to deal with these kinds of things.   Obviously the nature of the dungeon will dictate the propensity of traps.   I'm always careful to make sure it makes sense given the context.




Umbran said:


> I think there was an issue here, in that general play seems to have been influenced by tournament play - tournament play is a scored test, where you are tying to beat other players.  In that situation, "testing the players" makes some kind of sense.  Outside the tournament, you are no longer trying to score
> the players against a large group doing the same thing.  You are testing the players against the others in their party or against the GM.



I think tournament play forces some people out of their comfort zone for sure.  I never cared for tournaments nor do I care for encounters now.  I'm very campaign and world focused in my games.   I do though think the tournament approach fits the playstyle of some groups well because that is how they naturally operate.   




Umbran said:


> The former can lead to backstabbing, and arguing over gold and treasure (as GP = XP!), and the latter tends to lead to the antagonistic player-GM relationship.  While it is entirely possible to not have these things develop, they are natural human paths to take in the situation presented by the rules and adventures in question.  If non-antagonism was really desired, the game could have been designed a lot better to avoid it.



My groups are non-adversarial.  They know working together is the only way to survive in the world.  

If the DM is playing the monsters straight and fairly then no antagonism need arise.  He should play them appropriate to their intelligence (to the degree he can of course).   He should not metagame his own knowledge of the group.   I also find writing up monster "plans" ahead of time helps keep me honest.  I have more time to sit and think about how the monsters react in general to someone invading their lair and not so much my group in particular.  I try and figure out what they would know and how often they've confronted the type of group represented by the PC's.  If the answer is almost never then they will not be prepared.  If on the other hand, it is an enemy well versed in PC type challenges then they will be well prepared.



Umbran said:


> And this is a common over-statement of what metagaming means in this context.  Knowing to allow others to have spotlight time is metagaming, for example, but it has nothing to do with contriving situations, or knowing everything.



It actually fit the person I was responding to and his example.  I realize there are all sorts of metagaming.  For the most part I dislike it almost universally.




Umbran said:


> Which has little to do with the old-school/modernist divide, in my experience.  Some of the best exploration of the unknown, and mysterious and exciting locations I've ever done was in a recent Spirit of the Century game - and FATE is most assuredly not old-school in its construction.



Again, I was responding to the accusation that the new style supported those things and the old style did not.  In my games, the plot and character interactions are deep and fulfilling.   My PCs are not cardboard counters.   They have histories and the NPCs are deep and well drawn (at least the key ones).   That has nothing to do with the fact that I am also old school in how I handle player vs character challenge.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 17, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> I am not anti-pixel bitching as you call it (we need a less loaded term for sure).



I agree that a less loaded term for this style of play ("gritty exploration"?) is needed. 



Emerikol said:


> If the DM is playing the monsters straight and fairly then no antagonism need arise. He should play them appropriate to their intelligence (to the degree he can of course). He should not metagame his own knowledge of the group. I also find writing up monster "plans" ahead of time helps keep me honest.



This comes out in Gygax's pursuit rules in his DMG. The number one determinant of whether or not monsters pursue fleeing PCs is whatever the GM wrote down in his/her dungeon key.

If the key is silent, then there are a series of steps for working out whether or not pursuit takes place, based on monster intelligence, inclination etc.



Umbran said:


> While it is entirely possible to not have these things develop, they are natural human paths to take in the situation presented by the rules and adventures in question.  If non-antagonism was really desired, the game could have been designed a lot better to avoid it.



I agree.

I actually think this is one area where metagaming can help. In my own case, by joking along with the players, letting them know mechanical information about the challenges I have framed, etc, I reduce the sense that it is "me vs them" and help establish the challenges as framed in a "neutral" rather than antagonistic way.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 17, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> It's not a test like a math test.   Dungeons are full of traps for a very logical reason.  The owners want to protect their stuff.  *A lack of traps wouldn't make sense.*  I strive for a world that makes sense.




Absolutely it would. Traps in the D&D sense (i.e. unattended, activated by mechanisms) have almost never been used to protect specific small places in real life, particularly not in buildings. They're used almost exclusive to catch/kill animals, or for broad-spectrum _area denial_ and/or _harrassment_ (such as man-traps used against poachers, or land-mines or punji stick traps). They're largely a construct of genre, and foregoing them for living or quasi-living defenses (i.e. guards, undead, golems, etc.) makes complete sense and doesn't much change how D&D feels.

To be clear, I like traps as part of the genre, and use them, but for me they must answer the following questions (at a minimum):

1) Who built this and how?
2) Why did they build it? Why a trap not guards?
3) What mechanism do/did they use to bypass it, and is that practical?
4) Why/How is it still operational? Is it maintained? By who? Why?
5) Why/how is it still/currently in an armed position?

Indeed, if one designs dungeons "to make sense", the vast majority of D&D traps fail that test. Including those in plenty of "famous" dungeons.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jun 17, 2014)

Umbran said:


> And, my understanding of the origin of the Tomb of  Horrors rather speaks against the neutral stance - if the GM is  creating an adventure to prove the players wrong or humble them, that's  adversarial.




Agreed.  And the fact that the first run  through of Tomb of Horrors was 100% successful, no casualties, and all  treasure obtained is just amusing.

Equally adversarial was the  Earseeker - a monster that lives in doors and burrows into peoples' ears  - to deliberately stop them listening at doors (until they invented ear  trumpets).



> And this is a common over-statement of what metagaming means in  this context.  Knowing to allow others to have spotlight time is  metagaming, for example, but it has nothing to do with contriving  situations, or knowing everything.




What we would call metagaming, of course, was SOP in Lake Geneva.   And in just about any form of D&D where player skill is prized.



> Which has little to do with the old-school/modernist divide,  in my experience.  Some of the best exploration of the unknown, and  mysterious and exciting locations I've ever done was in a recent Spirit  of the Century game - and FATE is most assuredly not old-school in its  construction.




I'm going to disagree with you about Fate there.  There is very  little in Fate I can't trace back to Fuge, Amber, or Risus, and that  GURPS wasn't also doing in the 90s.  (Fortune in the middle?  Check -  when you used ordinary luck.  Social influence?  Check.  Ability to take  over narrative with e.g. Super Luck?  check.)  And you don't get much more trad than GURPS.

Once you remove the GMless games (e.g. Fiasco), the Old School/Modernist divide is much _much_ smaller than the advocates on any side would make out in my experience.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 17, 2014)

Neonchameleon said:


> What we would call metagaming, of course, was SOP in Lake Geneva.   And in just about any form of D&D where player skill is prized.




Yeah - player knowledge of the game was something commonly "tested", so I'm not sure how an argument against it has a link to old school.



> I'm going to disagree with you about Fate there.  There is very  little in Fate I can't trace back to Fuge, Amber, or Risus, and that  GURPS wasn't also doing in the 90s.




The only one of those that I'd call "old school" is GURPS (which was first published in 1986).  The others are games of the 90s, already showing distinct designs to differentiate them from the old school games.  IMHO.  

Plus, having shared ancestry does not mean two things are still in the same category today.   I don't care how many threads you can "trace back" to other games in ye olden days, the final product, FATE, it not itself old school.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 17, 2014)

Emerikol said:


> Well I do consider the Tomb of Horrors really hard and I wouldn't want a group to try it unless they really wanted to put their characters at serious risk.  On the flip side, I do not consider it a bad adventure given fair warning.   Some groups like a really hard challenge.




I wasn't trying to call it good or bad.  The point is that it's origin and construction stand against the idea that the old school GM and players don't tend to antagonistic roles. 



> I am not anti-pixel bitching as you call it (we need a less loaded term for sure).  I and my group want to be rewarded for caution and thoughtful play.




I don't know if we need a different term, so much as we have to be on the same page as what we are talking about here.

You want caution and thoughtful play. You can be thoughtful and cautious without pixel-bitching.  Pixel-bitching isn't about "caution and thoughtfulness".  The term comes from 8-bit video games, where the player had to click on a specific pixel in order to find the thing that allowed them to progress.  In RPG terms, it is about having one, and only one solution to a given problem, puzzle or issue, or requiring players to explicitly state actions down to inane levels of detail - beyond caution and thoughtfulness, and off into paranoia and pedantry.

Pixel-bitching gets old.  I don't mind it being a loaded term - when I use it, I *intend* the negative connotation.  The connotation is part of the point.  



> It's not a test like a math test.   Dungeons are full of traps for a very logical reason.    The owners want to protect their stuff.  A lack of traps wouldn't make sense.




I think Ruin Explorer covered that well.  By extension, D&D-esque traps should exist in our real world, and by and large, they don't.  No, Dungeons are full of traps because Gygax and company thought traps were keen.  



> My groups are non-adversarial.  They know working together is the only way to survive in the world.




And, by making it about you, personally, you seem to have missed the point, I'm afraid.



> If the DM is playing the monsters straight and fairly then no antagonism need arise.




 I never said it *needs* to arise.  I said it *tends* to arise.  You, and your individual groups, are not the question here.  And, "Well, it doesn't happen to *me*, so we can discount it as a concern," is a pretty myopic way to go about discussing the matter.  If you're all perfect, that's great, go have a ball.  But we still have the rest of the world to consider.

Any home campaign playstyle that is about "testing", will have the tendency to breed antagonistic play, because the player will ask, "testing against what?" and the answer becomes, "against the GM".  

Playing monsters (or any adventure elements) "straight" is not a defense in home campaign play - because the GM is responsible for their placement!  The GM is still the one who creates the test, and the one who adjudicates it, so ultimately it is the player's runtime thinking against the GM's thinking.  Still GM vs Player.  

Nobody likes to lose, or fail a test, and that includes players.  Then flip the coin - if the players win easily, that reflects on the GM, as his or her test was weak sauce.  Either way, emotions and ego can get involved.  This is not automatic, but is a quite natural development, based on very typical human behavior.  Any time that having things go well is predicated on humans not acting like humans, you are asking for trouble.  

This is all avoided in actual tournament play, where the GM didn't create or choose the adventure, and the players are being tested ultimately against other players.  It is the adoption of tournament-style structures (and many, if not most, of the old school modules are tournament adventures adapted for sale) that tends to start the issue.



> It actually fit the person I was responding to and his example.  I realize there are all sorts of metagaming.  For the most part I dislike it almost universally.




See the other notes. Metagaming is/was a cornerstone of a lot of old-school play.  If testing the players, rather than the characters, is the goal, the players will want to brig their system mastery (and mastery of the GM's thought processes as well) to the table - and "system mastery" is the epitome of metagaming.   If testing the characters is really the goal, many of the old-school tropes that are soluble via system mastery should be abandoned for other challenges. If testing is not a goal, we can thoroughly restructure the approach into something very much not old-school.


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 18, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I think Ruin Explorer covered that well.  By extension, D&D-esque traps should exist in our real world, and by and large, they don't.  No, Dungeons are full of traps because Gygax and company thought traps were keen.




I'm not sure that D&D was ever really based on what you have in the Real World, though. Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and others certainly ran into traps rather frequently, and they're among the entries in Appendix N which supposedly inspired the game.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 18, 2014)

Bluenose said:


> I'm not sure that D&D was ever really based on what you have in the Real World, though. Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and others certainly ran into traps rather frequently, and they're among the entries in Appendix N which supposedly inspired the game.




Er, did you read my post to which he is referring?

That is precisely my point. They are a _construct of the genre_, as I said. Further, they appear _very inconsistently_ within that genre. Tons of Appendix N or S&S material and so on features no mechanical-unattended traps (or even magical quasi-traps). That's why D&D often has them. However, they are not required, nor is an adventure, dungeon or place without them somehow "unrealistic" or inappropriate, which was the apparent assertion that I was responding to. I do like traps, but for me they need to make sense in context, and many D&D ones do not.

I would differentiate traps and hazards, note (and D&D tends to as well).


----------



## Umbran (Jun 18, 2014)

Bluenose said:


> Conan, Fafhrd, the Grey Mouser, and others certainly ran into traps rather frequently, and they're among the entries in Appendix N which supposedly inspired the game.




The claim was that traps exist because, _"A lack of traps wouldn't make sense. I strive for a world that makes sense."_

The worlds of Conan, Fafhrd, et al do not make sense.  That's why we consider them "fantasy".  

I'm fine with, "I strive for a world like Nehwon, so I include traps."


----------



## Scrivener of Doom (Jun 18, 2014)

MerricB said:


> (snip) *Liar's Dice* is a game of bluffing. Each player begins with five dice. Each player rolls their secretly, then in turn each player chooses either to make a guess about the current state of the game or accuse the previous guess of being incorrect. When an accusation is made, the round ends and the dice are compared - if the guess was correct, the accuser loses one die, otherwise the liar loses one die. The game ends when only one player has dice remaining.
> 
> Each guess says that there are a certain number of a certain side currently in the game. So, "Four of the dice show fives" or "Two sixes". A new guess must be higher than the old - either in the number of dice used or the face showing. So "Four fives" could be improved by "Five threes" or "Four Sixes" but not "Four threes". Obviously, at some point the statement as to what's left will become impossible.
> 
> ...




Thanks for posting that.

I've only ever played it as a drinking game in China in Chinese even though I neither drink nor speak Chinese. (So, yes, I knock back water or tea while my opponent is knocking back Chinese whiskey. I normally win....) I never realised there was a non-drinking version....


----------



## Bluenose (Jun 18, 2014)

Umbran said:


> The claim was that traps exist because, _"A lack of traps wouldn't make sense. I strive for a world that makes sense."_
> 
> The worlds of Conan, Fafhrd, et al do not make sense.  That's why we consider them "fantasy".
> 
> I'm fine with, "I strive for a world like Nehwon, so I include traps."




I don't read any statement about D&D and "what makes sense" as an appeal to what makes sense in Real Life. I read it as an appeal to something that makes sense in the genre, where they do appear. Real Life and D&D remain independent cases, to my way of thinking. I expect traps in Nehwon or Hyboria, and their appearance in a game influenced by those settings makes sense. At least to me. And I think both you and [MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION], based on his further post. I'm not sure that's the way [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] thinks of them, to be fair, but there is plenty of reason to include them from my perspective even if it differs from his.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Jun 18, 2014)

Bluenose said:


> I don't read any statement about D&D and "what makes sense" as an appeal to what makes sense in Real Life. I read it as an appeal to something that makes sense in the genre, where they do appear.




Again, I have to ask: did you read my post? I really get the feeling that you've still not.

I specifically addressed this. The genre is inconsistent. It makes no more or less "sense" to have lots of traps or absolutely no traps.



Bluenose said:


> Real Life and D&D remain independent cases, to my way of thinking. I expect traps in Nehwon or Hyboria, and their appearance in a game influenced by those settings makes sense. At least to me. And I think both you and [MENTION=18]Ruin Explorer[/MENTION], based on his further post. I'm not sure that's the way [MENTION=6698278]Emerikol[/MENTION] thinks of them, to be fair, but there is plenty of reason to include them from my perspective even if it differs from his.




D&D-style traps are fairly rare in Nehwon, so "expecting" them as routine doesn't flow naturally from that. I can't speak for Hyboria.

Apart from that, you're moving the goalposts - it's not about "reason to include them". It's about the insistence that traps "make sense", with the strong suggestion that a lack of traps does not.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 19, 2014)

I was going to say - I've read a lot of Conan stories, and I'm struggling to think of any with D&D style traps in them.  I'm sure that there are a couple here or there, but, really, I don't think they make an appearance very often.  The whole Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom thing with a series of traps with the golden statue at the end isn't a Conan thing.

Although, it certainly is a pulp fantasy thing.  You do see it in lots of the pulp short stories.  Which is why you see it in Indiana Jones.  And, this is why you see it in D&D.


----------



## pemerton (Jun 19, 2014)

Hussar said:


> I've read a lot of Conan stories, and I'm struggling to think of any with D&D style traps in them.



There are secret doors, and the occasional pit. Off the top of my head I can't think of any scything blades, falling blocks or poison needles.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Jun 21, 2014)

We had a fun game tonight at Nexus gaming con in Milwaukee. I ran Castle Zagyg:Upper Works and the players all agreed at the end that it was an enjoyable module. one thing that happened early on was the party entering the "bat cave" (#E) and using a grappling hook to enter the castle from beneath via "a tubular tunnel of brickwork leading straight upwards, the top of which you notice has a large wooden crossbar across its end with a rope attached." 

This is a classic D&D trick of course. They hadn't yet seen within the castle, so I was very careful about how I explained the "cave" shaft out of the natural cavern. I expected the players to figure it out right away, but they never let on. Once a couple PCs were finally out of the "4' ring of stonewall with wooden pylons, crossbar, and nearby bucket" I finally told them a they stood beside a well in a corner courtyard. 

Of course they figured it out right away, but they never let on string ME along as I kept describing the environment in details rather than its composition. 

I don't know how each DM differentiates between Tricks & Traps, but I guess I treat the first as environmental and the second as creature creations. Of course it's also common to think of both as creature creations where tricks fool players (like a wild goose chase), while traps must always entrap (like a bear trap hidden or not).


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 21, 2014)

Bluenose said:


> I don't read any statement about D&D and "what makes sense" as an appeal to what makes sense in Real Life. I read it as an appeal to something that makes sense in the genre, where they do appear. Real Life and D&D remain independent cases, to my way of thinking. I expect traps in Nehwon or Hyboria, and their appearance in a game influenced by those settings makes sense. At least to me. And I think both you and @_*Ruin Explorer*_, based on his further post. I'm not sure that's the way @_*Emerikol*_ thinks of them, to be fair, but there is plenty of reason to include them from my perspective even if it differs from his.




Another way of saying this perhaps is...given a set of setting premises does the concept make sense.   D&D is in itself a set of premises.  D&D has an implied setting even if not one single setting were supplied.   In a world with teleport, things are different.  I try and make peace with these things when I design a campaign world but if I want something different I change the game to reflect that difference.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> 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."​_


----------



## Manbearcat (Apr 30, 2015)

[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 (May 1, 2015)

[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.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 3, 2015)

pemerton said:


> [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 (May 3, 2015)

Manbearcat said:


> 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.


----------



## Manbearcat (May 5, 2015)

pemerton said:


> 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!



pemerton said:


> 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:




I suspect you relate.


----------



## pemerton (May 24, 2017)

pemerton said:


> 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.





Manbearcat said:


> 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"!


----------



## Hussar (May 25, 2017)

Heh, just reread the thread.  Well, it is nice to see consistency in points of view.


----------



## Emerikol (Jul 9, 2017)

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 (Jul 9, 2017)

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.


----------

