Comfort level with circumstance modifiers

[Beale Knight]

The GM decides that the poor illumination makes the task more difficult and applies a -4 circumstance penalty to the Disable Device roll as a result.

If I were DMing I'd've made it just a -2, but that's just a quibble. Otherwise the penalty isn't unreasonable.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I said "specifically covered" - as in "enumerated" or "codified". This is the distinction I'm trying to draw (that came up in previous discussions). I will be the first to agree that the RAW give GMs permission to apply circumstance modifiers. The purpose of the poll is to find out ENworlder's comfort level with their GM actually using that option.

The RAW not only gives permission but suggests that he use them, and that he makes them up on the fly. The specific example in the RAW has multiple modifiers being stacked. It specifically states that they are for circumstances, and therefor should not be codified. Given that the average E. N. Worlder is at least moderately intelligent why should you be surprised that they are going with the most reasonable options on your poll?

The Auld Grump

 

[Ourph]

Given that the average E. N. Worlder is at least moderately intelligent why should you be surprised that they are going with the most reasonable options on your poll?

The Auld Grump

Because, in another thread, there were several ENworlders telling me that it was highly unusual for the GMs in their games to go beyond the pre-established modifiers codified in the rules to apply circumstance modifiers; and I seemed to be the lone dissenting voice. From the results of the poll, I guess I can conclude that either 1) Most people voting in this poll weren't reading the other thread; 2) The discussion was so boring no one wanted to throw in their $.02; or 3) I was doing such a good job defending my side of the argument no one else felt the need to comment.

I guess I could create another poll to find out, but I think I'll just assume it's number 3 and leave it at that.

 

[S'mon]

Was the other thread on the Rules Forum? It's full of crazy people... *eek*

 

[Ourph]

Was the other thread on the Rules Forum? It's full of crazy people... *eek*

Nope. It's the 20 page Ryan Dancey thread in the GD forum.

My portion of the discussion started on post 501 but really gets to the point of this poll around page 18-19.

Here's the thread...

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=138810&page=1&pp=40

 

[el-remmen]

Giving circumstance modifiers is exactly what the DM's job is. . . It seems silly for it to be any other way. . .

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Recent discussions on rules-lite vs. rules-heavy made me believe there would be a far greater percentage of ENworlders uncomfortable with DMs applying circumstance modifiers not specifically covered in the RAW.

That's because you're using this poll to argue with a strawman.

The RH point in the RH vs. RL discussion was not, "DMs should not use circumstance modifiers under any circumstances."

The RH point in the RH vs. RL discussion was, actually, "If the DM is using cirumstance modifiers in such profusion that the original, by-the-book, DC is completely overshadowed, it might be worth considering why you're using d20 (and its codified rules) to begin with."

 

[Ourph]

That's because you're using this poll to argue with a strawman.

I'm not using this poll to "argue" with anything. I had a question and I wanted to get feedback on it from the rest of ENworld. Period. My comments about being surprised weren't intended as an insult or a dig. I think ALL of the options on the poll are reasonable positions to take from a certain POV and I was actually surprised to see the results turn out so incredibly lopsided.

The only way the poll could be construed as a "straw man" is if someone tried to extrapolate the responses to the poll to mean something outside the scope of the question. That's not my intention and it never was.

As for what was said in the other discussion. Both of your statements are oversimplifications. The discussion stretched out over 4-5 pages of that thread and not only included both POVs you expressed but a significant number of others as well. Anyone who's interested in the real details can read it for themselves.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Of course it's a simplification - but then, so is "a far greater percentage of ENworlders uncomfortable with DMs applying circumstance modifiers."

EDIT:

I'm not using this poll to "argue" with anything. I had a question and I wanted to get feedback on it from the rest of ENworld. Period.

Fair enough. Perhaps I jumped the gun - but I could very clearly see this showing up as "evidence" in the other thread, say, tomorrow.

 

[Ourph]

Of course it's a simplification - but then, so is "a far greater percentage of ENworlders uncomfortable with DMs applying circumstance modifiers."

That's not a simplification at all...that's exactly what I was thinking at the time I wrote the post.

It may very well have been a "simple" (i.e. - not very well considered) assumption on my part, but the statement is 100% accurate.

It was an admission of ignorance on my part, not a veiled dig at ENworlders in general.