I came across another interesting D&D article while pilfering old copies of White Dwarf magazine. This article appeared in the very first issue of White Dwarf. So we are travelling back to the summer of 1977, just 3 years after D&D came out and already its popularity is rising in the UK.

The article in question is titled "D&D Campaigns" and was written by Lewis Pulsipher. What I found interesting about it is that it illuminates the state of play at that time in the UK and the challenges of the ambiguity of the original rules. It's also interest to imagine what differences there were in the UK approach having most likely been introduced to the game at a time when all the supplements were available.

UK OD&D Campaigns Discussed in White Dwarf #1

In summary the article introduces a three-part series on running Dungeons & Dragons campaigns, aimed at aspiring or novice referees (Dungeon Masters). It provides insights into campaign philosophy, mechanics, and rule interpretations, emphasizing a structured and self-consistent approach to gameplay.

The key philosophical points that stand out include discussions regarding the styles of play, the role of the rules, the challenges of luck-driven play and the balance of power.

In regards to play styles Pulsipher categorises typical players into two main groups: 'Game-players' who focus on challenges like combat (players vs. monsters) or puzzles (traps, mazes), 'Escapists' who seek immersive stories (passively engaging with the referee’s narrative) or chaotic, "silly" experiences relying heavily on chance. The author criticizes the latter styles, preferring campaigns emphasizing player skill over luck, with clear rules and consistency. This is (I think) a slight parallel with D&D players today although I think for many players who were introduced to D&D later there is the assumption that the old school method was much less "flamboyant, flexible or silly" than modern iterations. This is definitely not what you find when you read the earliest fanzines, which evidences a lot of confusion in regards to how the game was intended to be played which resulted in many referees creating some very obscure and unbalanced games that had a real lack of consistency.

In Pulsipher's discussion of the role of rules he expresses that adherence to core D&D rules is advised for clarity and ease, especially for newcomers. He infers that referees should use new rules or supplements judiciously, ensuring integration with their campaign's world and tone. The "anything goes" mindset (introducing arbitrary or overly random elements) is discouraged, as it undermines player skill and realism.

He then goes on to discuss the challenges with luck-driven play explaining that random elements like magical decks or levers dominate "lottery D&D," leading to reliance on chance rather than skilful play. This can create unrealistic player behaviour, diminishing immersion and meaningful decision-making.

Another interesting highlight for me is his discussion of power balance. He encourages campaigns that balance challenge and progression. Starting at lower levels allows for gradual power growth, fostering deeper player engagement and giving referees more control. High-power campaigns may bore players or overwhelm referees. This is a topic that does sometimes come up in regards to modern versus old school D&D as there would seem more of a tendency with newer editions to start players off at higher levels and use milestone XP to progress (sometimes much quicker than is appropriate). This is clearly a problem that is nothing new, although I myself have played in a 5th edition game where I have a level 8 character despite only attending 4 sessions. I was told to begin at level 5 and have been told after every session to level up again (even after sessions I did not attend and had now character involvement!). 

I agree whole heartedly with Pulsipher who seems to believe that success in D&D should be determined more by intelligence and adaptability than by experience, as the game simulates a world that rewards realistic decision-making. Pulsipher champions campaigns rooted in skill, moderation, and consistency, offering a satisfying and believable experience for players. Luck-based or "anything goes" campaigns, while occasionally fun, are deemed inferior for long-term engagement.

It seems he felt strongly enough about this that he wrote the article in order to help those would-be Dungeon Master's come up with a much better game. As much as the advice was needed back then I think it should also echo today!