Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2326504" data-attributes="member: 32164">Well...since I can't put it any better than it's been said, I'll just quote:Couldn't have said it better myself.The first accusation people make about rules light systems is that all rulings come down to DM fiat. The rules-light defenders rail about how it's NOT DM fiat for a while, and then eventually come out and say what they really mean, which is &quot;well, what's wrong with DM fiat?&quot;It's not about whether or not you &quot;trust&quot; your DM. It's about whether the DM's rulings are mechanically balanced and CONSISTENT. If the DM is consistent (and has a good memory), then his rulings will be consistent. But then he's just using a rulebook that's written in his own head. However, if the DM's rulings are not consistent, then the players get justifiably frustrated. However, they don't have any place to &quot;look up&quot; the rule, so the DM has plenty of grounds to claim consistency where none exists. And the players probably have no &quot;evidence&quot; to prove their DM is being inconsistent. Obviously, a good DM wouldn't do this, but not all DMs are paragons of virtue.On the other hand, D&amp;D 3e provides guidelines so DMs can make consistent rulings.&nbsp; A novice DM is not EXPECTED to remember all the modifiers. You're expected to &quot;make a ruling on the spot&quot; and &quot;look it up later.&quot; Over time, you need to look up fewer and fewer rules, because you just know them. Once you know them that well, it's the same as if you were making them all up, with the added proviso that they'll all be pretty &quot;consistent.&quot; And your players know it, and even have some idea what their chance of success will be (as they would in the &quot;real world&quot;).Given that the &quot;fudge factor&quot; crops up even with the D&amp;D rules, I don't see how rough guidelines could possibly be MORE consistent. But maybe it's a willingness to sacrifice &quot;consistency&quot; for &quot;simplicity.&quot; In which case, it's a debate I understand. Those willing to do so prefer C&amp;C. Those who feel differently prefer D&amp;D 3e.Of course, all of this is completely independent of how you feel about things like D&amp;D's pseudo-character-point &quot;wealth system,&quot; CR system, or other factors that are also &quot;whacked&quot; out of C&amp;C (like its somewhat lower power curve). And I imagine some people prefer it strictly for those reasons.I could, however, be utterly and completely wrong. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 2326504, member: 32164"] Well...since I can't put it any better than it's been said, I'll just quote: Couldn't have said it better myself. The first accusation people make about rules light systems is that all rulings come down to DM fiat. The rules-light defenders rail about how it's NOT DM fiat for a while, and then eventually come out and say what they really mean, which is "well, what's wrong with DM fiat?" It's not about whether or not you "trust" your DM. It's about whether the DM's rulings are mechanically balanced and CONSISTENT. If the DM is consistent (and has a good memory), then his rulings will be consistent. But then he's just using a rulebook that's written in his own head. However, if the DM's rulings are not consistent, then the players get justifiably frustrated. However, they don't have any place to "look up" the rule, so the DM has plenty of grounds to claim consistency where none exists. And the players probably have no "evidence" to prove their DM is being inconsistent. Obviously, a good DM wouldn't do this, but not all DMs are paragons of virtue. On the other hand, D&D 3e provides guidelines so DMs can make consistent rulings. A novice DM is not EXPECTED to remember all the modifiers. You're expected to "make a ruling on the spot" and "look it up later." Over time, you need to look up fewer and fewer rules, because you just know them. Once you know them that well, it's the same as if you were making them all up, with the added proviso that they'll all be pretty "consistent." And your players know it, and even have some idea what their chance of success will be (as they would in the "real world"). Given that the "fudge factor" crops up even with the D&D rules, I don't see how rough guidelines could possibly be MORE consistent. But maybe it's a willingness to sacrifice "consistency" for "simplicity." In which case, it's a debate I understand. Those willing to do so prefer C&C. Those who feel differently prefer D&D 3e. Of course, all of this is completely independent of how you feel about things like D&D's pseudo-character-point "wealth system," CR system, or other factors that are also "whacked" out of C&C (like its somewhat lower power curve). And I imagine some people prefer it strictly for those reasons. I could, however, be utterly and completely wrong. ;) [/QUOTE]

Verification