Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2389605" data-attributes="member: 6777"><p>But there's a difference between setting the scene and being the sole arbiter as to how the PC interacts with that scene.</p><p></p><p>As you describe C&C, the player really has no idea whatsoever whether their PC can make that jump. They have to wait until the GM focuses on them, arbitrarily picks a number, and then reveals whether the roll was enough to beat it.</p><p></p><p>In D&D, as a player, I can look at the battlemat, see exactly how wide the gap is that my PC needs to jump, thus providing me, with no help from the DM, a basic DC. I then can determine the mods due to lack of space to make a running start, terrain, encumbance, etc, because they are right in the book. Barring the addition of a "DM's buddy" +2/-2 modifier, both the DM and I <em>are on the same page</em> as to the difficulty of the jump,. I can even make my roll and determine whether the PC makes it without the participation of the DM. As a player, this is empowering. The numbers on my sheet mean something.</p><p></p><p></p><p>If a DM is doing this, that's railroading; the PC never had a chance. </p><p></p><p>In the D&D scenario, both the player and the DM are ostensibly bound by the rules of the situation that's been created. The chasm that's X feet wide doesn't suddenly become X+N feet wide becasue the DM doesn't want the PC to make the jump. That would be cheating. The circumstances are accounted for; regardless of who's DMing, the DC will be the same. Consistency leads to consensus, which leads to a better play experience.</p><p></p><p>In the "lite" example, success has nothing to do with the PC's capabilties or the terrain; it's whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I prefer that the criteria be at least somewhat objective, e.g., a chasm X feet wide = DC Y. A game doens't need to be "heavy" to accomplish this objectivity, necessarily, it just needs to be "rules sufficient".</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="buzz, post: 2389605, member: 6777"] But there's a difference between setting the scene and being the sole arbiter as to how the PC interacts with that scene. As you describe C&C, the player really has no idea whatsoever whether their PC can make that jump. They have to wait until the GM focuses on them, arbitrarily picks a number, and then reveals whether the roll was enough to beat it. In D&D, as a player, I can look at the battlemat, see exactly how wide the gap is that my PC needs to jump, thus providing me, with no help from the DM, a basic DC. I then can determine the mods due to lack of space to make a running start, terrain, encumbance, etc, because they are right in the book. Barring the addition of a "DM's buddy" +2/-2 modifier, both the DM and I [i]are on the same page[/i] as to the difficulty of the jump,. I can even make my roll and determine whether the PC makes it without the participation of the DM. As a player, this is empowering. The numbers on my sheet mean something. If a DM is doing this, that's railroading; the PC never had a chance. In the D&D scenario, both the player and the DM are ostensibly bound by the rules of the situation that's been created. The chasm that's X feet wide doesn't suddenly become X+N feet wide becasue the DM doesn't want the PC to make the jump. That would be cheating. The circumstances are accounted for; regardless of who's DMing, the DC will be the same. Consistency leads to consensus, which leads to a better play experience. In the "lite" example, success has nothing to do with the PC's capabilties or the terrain; it's whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed. Personally, I prefer that the criteria be at least somewhat objective, e.g., a chasm X feet wide = DC Y. A game doens't need to be "heavy" to accomplish this objectivity, necessarily, it just needs to be "rules sufficient". [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
Top