Foot, Meet Ass

AKA "A Discussion of the Principia Apocrypha"

Reader Steam Tunnel, God bless him, has made it clear to me that a discussion of the "work" known as Principia Apocrypha needs to be reviewed and analyzed. I had not planned on doing this today (I hadn't planned on posting anything, actually...) but best to nip this kind of thing in the bud.

Taking a cue from Bryce Lynch, I'm going to read this so YOU don't have to.

David Perry's Principia (subtitled "Elementary Axioms & Aphorisms On Running & Playing Tabletop RPGs In The Old School Style From Ben Milton & Steven Lumpkin") is freely available from Perry's web site, although it can also be picked up (in German!) from DriveThruRPG. 

I first became aware of it (near as I can recall) in September of 2021, at which time I referred to it as "a huge steaming pile of nonsense." After Steam Tunnel's assertion that "everything" Alexis wrote about in his posts of 10/14 and 10/15 "was largely covered in the Principia Apocrypha," I decided I better re-read the thing and make sure I hadn't missed some brilliant changes that had been made to the body of the text.

Nope: it's still just a pile of crap.  But let's discuss why!

Principia is a Latin word meaning "beginnings" or "fundamental principles." Apocrypha is a Greek word meaning "hidden" or "secret." Setting aside the question of why we are mixing languages (other than the pretension of making it sound like some sort of scholarly treatise), I found it interesting that my Google AI also returned the following meaning for the latter term: "of doubtful authenticity." Now THAT makes sense.

The pamphlet (for lack of a more accurate term) is 31 pages long, and is a mostly rambling essay of some 4,500 words (including Chapter titles). How is that even possible, one might ask? Well, it uses a REALLY LARGE FONT and offers a TON of blank space (I assume 'for effect') and then adds some illustrations. But 4,500 words is nothing, especially in THIS case, where the author/editor insists on using pithy phrases, needless prattle, elementary examples, and mind-numbing padding. Here's an example:

As GM (or Judge or Referee, perhaps more appropriate for old school style games), you are not an antagonist to the players or characters.

Twenty-four words. Just to communicate the obvious (i.e. not "secret" or "hidden") idea that "DM's should not be jerks." Needless padding and neglects the use of the term Dungeon Master which is common parlance for ALL "old school" games.

In contrast, here are two blog posts I wrote in response to exactly this kind of tripe explaining the fallacies in treating Finch's "Old School Primer" as Gospel, and what the ACTUAL fundamental parts of AD&D are:

Dispel Myth(s)

Seven Elements

Total word count combined: 5,125 words, very little of which is "filler." I really, REALLY hate to toot my own horn, but I daresay these are worth reading if you're confused about what is and is not "old school" D&D play...especially if you're using docs like Principia Apocrypha as your holy writ. 

But let's not bury the lead, JB...what about the actual CONTENT in this pamphlet? Sure...we can go through the various "principles" (though my post might end up longer than the original document):

Rulings Over Rules 

The principle that rulings should override rules misunderstands AD&D’s core structure. While flexibility is necessary, the rules exist to create a common game language and ensure fairness. Disregarding them casually undermines the consistency that makes D&D a game rather than an improv exercise. True “rulings” occur within the framework of rules comprehension...not as a replacement for it...and, generally, only when necessary.

Divest Yourself of Their Fate

The suggestion that the DM must be impartial to the point of detachment ignores that the universe (the DM) does care. The Dungeon Master isn’t a mere “arbiter” of dice rolls, but a world-builder and caretaker who invests meaning in the results. Dice add risk and impartiality, but the DM’s human judgment ensures coherence and care for the campaign’s ongoing legacy. 

Leave Preparation Flexible

This principle conflates player freedom with DM aimlessness. True D&D requires strong preparation: dungeon architecture, treasure placement, encounter balance, and world logistics. The illusion of spontaneity rests on thorough planning. A flexible campaign still demands an exacting DM who prepares intelligently and consistently applies world logic (along with a firm knowledge and application of the rules).

Build Responsive Situations

The emphasis on “situations” rather than “adventures” or “scenarios” reflects a modern narrative bias. In D&D, the dungeon or wilderness is not a “situation”—it is an objective challenge space. While dynamism between factions is valuable, the focus should remain on concrete, actionable design—not on “responsive narrative ecosystems.” 

Embrace Chaos… But Uphold Logic

Randomness has value, but is not the be-all and end-all of design. Random tables and dice rolls are tools of constrained uncertainty, not invitations to surrealism. When logic and consistency is cast aside in favor of randomness, the game world loses credibility and denies both intelligent play and player engagement. Dice should surprise, not confuse. 

Let Them Off the Rails

Sound advice, but hardly a "secret principle." Early D&D’s non-linear structure (wilderness maps, keyed dungeons, hex crawls) already presumes no rails. The real issue isn’t railroading—it’s whether the DM has prepared enough substance for players to meaningfully explore when they go off the expected path. 

XP for Discovery and Adversity

This re-frames XP-for-treasure into a vague “XP for discovery,” which dilutes the economic core of D&D. The treasure-based XP system is elegant: it unifies risk, exploration, and player motivation under one measurable mechanic. Replacing it with “discovery and adversity” invites subjectivity and erodes the economy’s balancing function. 

Player Ingenuity Over Character Ability

This principle is sound but the Principia often presents it as if rediscovered wisdom rather than baked into D&D’s mechanical DNA. D&D already privileges player skill through exploration, problem-solving, and resource management. However, it also presumes mastery of rules and tactics; this isn’t “freeform creativity,” it’s applied ingenuity within constraints. 

Cleverness Rewarded, Not Thwarted

Again, this echoes D&D’s ethos but strips away the mechanical teeth that make cleverness meaningful. Rewarding cleverness only matters when failure is real and the stakes are economic and mortal. If the GM is merely “generous,” cleverness becomes theater. In D&D, cleverness is rewarded by treasure, survival, and advancement: quantifiable consequences. 

Ask Them How They Do It

This section advocates for descriptive play over die rolls, which is garbage; it promotes an aesthetic dance over practical game play. It is not necessary to ask "How are you checking for traps?" Players interact with the mechanics (I check for traps), DM arbitrates (make your roll), and the session continues. Just what are we doing here? D&D is not performative in the way of a story-teller; promoting procedural clarity over performative guesswork keeps the gaming moving.

Let Them Manipulate the World

More garbage. Brute force (i.e. violence) is one of the core tenets of the game (hence the reason so much of the instructional text is devoted to combat). While other methods of problem solving are available, there are material limits to player manipulation: encumbrance, time, spell limits, reaction rolls, morale, etc. “Tools” are not permission slips for freeform creativity; they are resources to be husbanded, just like hit points and gold. Manipulation without limitation ceases to be game play. 

Good Items Are Unique Tools 

Sure, magic can be wondrous and weird, but Principia leans toward “whimsical toys” instead of meaningful campaign resources. D&D’s magic items have weight: they alter logistics, balance, and risk, and their strategic use are an important aspect of meeting in-game challenges. Magical scarcity and consequence...not cuteness...are what define the "old edition" gameplay. 

Don’t Mind the Fourth Wall

This principle is careless. “Metagaming” is a natural part of gameplay, and leads to engagement and immersion in a way that "strict personification" of one's character does not.

Offer Tough Choices

Choices ARE offered in D&D, but the emphasis should be on MEANINGFUL choices, not "tough" choices. Meaningful choices are usually grounded in resource pressures (time, light, HPs, spells, etc.) rather than narrative morality or dilemma-for-drama. Real tension is practical, not thematic. 

Subvert Their Expectations

Subversion is not a design goal in D&D; it is a byproduct of coherent world-building. If monsters and magic follow clear logic, surprises will emerge organically. Deliberate “twisting of tropes” risks drawing attention to the author instead of the world, and discounts the effort players apply to game mastery. Novelty should arise from authentic unpredictability, not clever meta-jokes. 

Build Challenges with Multiple Answers

True in principle—but only when those answers arise from the rules and world physics, not from DM fiat. D&D’s openness comes from simulationist consistency, not improvisational flexibility. If every problem has multiple answers because “the DM says so,” then the world is arbitrary, not logical. Multiple real solutions, not infinite possible ones. 

And Challenges with No Answer

This advice is a design indulgence. Challenges with “no answer” contradict the purpose of play: D&D is a game to be solved through risk and ingenuity. “No-answer” problems exist only when the DM withholds tools or logic. True D&D thrives on fairness: every obstacle is deadly, but all are beatable through intelligence, magic, treasure, or sheer luck.

Deadly but Avoidable Combat

Entirely consistent with D&D—combat should be dangerous and not the default. However, Principia frames this in terms of “story stakes,” whereas D&D grounds it in mechanical reality: hit points, armor, morale, and logistics. Combat’s lethality emerges from rules and scarcity, not DM philosophy. “Avoidable” is good; “cinematic lethality” is a distortion. And always remember that D&D offers many ways to recover from death.

Keep Up the Pressure

Run correctly, the game applies its own pressure. DMs performing their job correctly need not resort to 1-in-6 "chance for trouble;" just nonsense.

Let the Dice Kill Them...

The dice may be the heralds of death, but it is the DM's choices that determine when those dice are rolled. Make no mistake: the DM is adversarial...not antagonistic in malice, but in purpose. This is the game, and the players know and expect this; it's the DM's job to challenge the players and place deadly perils in their path. You can say "it's just the dice!" all you want...the players will feel otherwise.

Reveal the Situation / Give Them Layers to Peel

Transparency is good, but the Principia’s tone implies the DM should curate the mystery for narrative effect, not model an environment. D&D’s exploration procedures already structure discovery. The DM doesn’t need to “peel layers”; the dungeon does that itself. The focus should remain on spatial and procedural revelation, not narrative pacing. 

Keep the World Alive 

The section is mostly fine other than the first sentence ("Old school RPGs shine with improvisation and extrapolation, not rigid plots."). We are not looking for scripted plots and stories, but situations and scenarios lend structure, whereas a game run on 100% "improvisation and extrapolation" can lead to chaos and boredom.

NPCs Aren’t Scripts

This part is fine except for the last section that extolls "liberal" use of Reaction and Morale rolls. If you "treat NPCs like real people" with motivations, the random rolls need apply only rarely.

Annnd...is that about it? I suppose I didn't go over the "Principles for Players," but they're mostly self-evident, misleading, or contrary to the game as designed. Let's see if I can hit these in lightning round fashion:

Learn When To Run: Right. You're not playing 5E anymore.

Combat As War, Not Sport: Sure. But fortune favors the bold.

Don't Be Limited By Your Character Sheet: You should ABSOLUTELY know and make use of what's on your character sheet; failing to do so is your failure! Make use of your abilities, skills, and equipment; ask questions! What's the DM going to say besides "no?" Learn from your mistakes.

Live Your Backstory: You don't have a backstory.

Power Is Earned, Heroism Proven: Huh? This some narrativist BS here. Play your character like it's you in the situation with the skills available to you. YOU decide whether you want to act heroically (at whatever power level your character is). Heroism is NOT about slaying the dragon single-handedly; heroism is making the hard choice for the right reason. 

Scrutinize The World, Interrogate The Fiction: This is mostly fine, but (just like the "other games" referenced), D&D also has rules for doing things. If you fail your secret door roll, you don't find the secret door...don't expect your "descriptive narration" to override the baked-in game mechanics.

The Only Dead End Is Death: Sometimes a dead end is just a dead end. I put them in my adventures all the time. And there are a TON of ways to overcome death in the game, just by the way.

Play To Win, Savor Loss: Loss happens. You can choose to learn from your mistakes...and become a better player with fewer losses...or you can learn to "love failure" (as the Principia Apocrypha suggests), in which case you'll never grow or develop as a player. Which means you'll never open the whole range of game play available to you, instead being relegated to the role of a perpetual punching bag.

Pathetic.

Man, that was rough, right? What gives me the authority to be so mean to yet another form-over-function, style-over-substance offering from some bright corner of the OSR community? Who the heck am I to pontificate on the subject? Just a blowhard blogger with some 2500+ posts over 16+ years? Just a guy who's been playing these games, running these games, and teaching these games for 40+ years, publishing a handful of books along the way? How do my credentials stack up against these fine people writing their manifesto on "old school gaming?" Well, let's see...

Principia Apocrypha was "assembled and amended" by David Perry, and appears on his web site. Perry has two blogs, one with a grand total of 17 entries between 2021 and 2023, the other with 26 entries between 2018 and 2025. Aside from this steaming pile, I found only one credit for him on DriveThruRPG, as one of 29 authors that contributed to a 46 page "collaboratively stocked dungeon" called The Halls Untoward (system agnostic). Oh...and he has some stuff on itch.io.

Ben Milton is a longtime game reviewer at Questing Beast and the author of the OSR game Knave, which I believe I've mentioned before.He's been around since at least 2014 (back when he was big on Pathfinder), and has several game credits to his name on DriveThruRPG, including the much beloved The Waking of Willowby Hall. You can purchase Knave, 2nd Edition (PDF only) for $19.99. Perry credits Milton's other game, Maze Rats, as being one of the primary sources for his Principia Apocrypha.

Steven Lumpkin is a video game designer who started a blog in 2014 (inactive since 2018 with only 27 entries) which, per Mr. Perry, is the source of the original principles text of the Principia Apocrypha and a primary source for the document as a whole. In addition to his defunct blog, Lumpkin is a GM for a net series (like Critical Role?) called Rollplay: The West Marches, which I've never heard of. His credits on DriveThruRPG include the German version of Principia Apocrypha...and that's it.

So...yeah. Real authorities, there, huh? Paragons of "Old School" cred?

Let's be serious for a moment: the so-called "OSR" isn't anything more than a branding moniker these days. No longer is it a "movement" of any sort; rather, it is "marketing," pure and simple. Principles like those put forward in Principia Apocrypha or like those worshipped in Matt Finch's Old School Primer are nothing more than empty platitudes that only partially describe old edition play and mainly serve as distraction and misinformation. Even bothering to write this post is a colossal waste of my time...this is the kind of thing that shouldn't NEED to be written as it should be utterly obvious to anyone picking it up that these "secret principles" are nothing but lukewarm blog ramblings that most AI algorithms could easily spit out, upon command. Easy.

Newbies to Old School gaming: don't be grifted and swayed by these petty "influencers" looking to define gameplay in a way that makes their own products more enticing or adds laurels to their names. Forget that crap...look to the people doing the work as examples and models to follow and then do what they do. Because if they've been doing it for years (or decades!) without fail, then maybe they know what the hell they're doing. Beware of false prophets and monetization for the sake of monetization.

*sigh* That's it for today.

(2,778 words)