Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9319054" data-attributes="member: 87792">There is definitely a difference in quality of adventures - and few D&amp;D modules have ever been as deprotagonising as some of those White Wolf ones. At one end of the spectrum is a good &quot;threatening sandbox&quot; like The Enemy Within or possibly Caverns of Thracia that has a ceiling technically lower than homebrew but few D&amp;D games ever come close to that ceiling. At the other is &quot;you are here to hold the coats of the important NPCs the metaplot is about&quot; that White Wolf was fond of and I believe D&amp;D did a couple of times round edition changes.This is part of why Apocalypse World refers to their GM role as the MC - the Master of Ceremonies. It's a less exalted role. And one of the things AW does is tries to give the MC a good model of when and how to act to build that pressure and threat (that might also be challenge) in a way that will lead to a better story with more empowered PCs faster. And the sheer quantity of pressure it gets you to pour on is absurd by D&amp;D standards; literally a third, arguably two thirds of all rolls lead to visibly increasing pressure.This modelling good practice means that in my experience a C grade MC will both be as adept at pouring on the pressure as an A grade DM who specialises in it but will use quantities that might make a sadistic DM blush. And by the end of session 10 or so the campaign will be done, with non-trivial odds of the setting being blown up in one final bonfire. And part of the reason they can pour on the pressure so hard is it's rate to go much beyond ten sessions and setting survival is optional.Does this modelling of good practice help MCs be good at everything? No. No one is and the game focuses on the parts that help the story; stakes, pressure, and what the PCs do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 9319054, member: 87792"] There is definitely a difference in quality of adventures - and few D&D modules have ever been as deprotagonising as some of those White Wolf ones. At one end of the spectrum is a good "threatening sandbox" like The Enemy Within or possibly Caverns of Thracia that has a ceiling technically lower than homebrew but few D&D games ever come close to that ceiling. At the other is "you are here to hold the coats of the important NPCs the metaplot is about" that White Wolf was fond of and I believe D&D did a couple of times round edition changes. This is part of why Apocalypse World refers to their GM role as the MC - the Master of Ceremonies. It's a less exalted role. And one of the things AW does is tries to give the MC a good model of when and how to act to build that pressure and threat (that might also be challenge) in a way that will lead to a better story with more empowered PCs faster. And the sheer quantity of pressure it gets you to pour on is absurd by D&D standards; literally a third, arguably two thirds of all rolls lead to visibly increasing pressure. This modelling good practice means that in my experience a C grade MC will both be as adept at pouring on the pressure as an A grade DM who specialises in it but will use quantities that might make a sadistic DM blush. And by the end of session 10 or so the campaign will be done, with non-trivial odds of the setting being blown up in one final bonfire. And part of the reason they can pour on the pressure so hard is it's rate to go much beyond ten sessions and setting survival is optional. Does this modelling of good practice help MCs be good at everything? No. No one is and the game focuses on the parts that help the story; stakes, pressure, and what the PCs do. [/QUOTE]

Verification