Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2389659" data-attributes="member: 6777">Becasue a DM in D&D is not allowed, in the RAW, to just set the DC for a 10' jump as high as she wants. There's a contract between the players and the DM that the rules in the book apply. The rules dictate modifiers for the jump based on distance, terrain, etc. The DC produced by those rules will vary by +2/-2 at best unless the DM is outright ignoring them.I mean, I understand what you're getting at, that there's potential in any RPG that the GM can potentially ignore rules willy-nilly. But what's the point of using any system if that's the case? The basic assumption is that the rules will be used, and by the rules, the D&D version of the check will not vary, and thus the player can accurately assess how his PC's capabilties function within the game world.There's a quote I think is relevant here (another one I found on Mearls' blog): "That's the value of well-designed rules. They let you do things that are more fun than you'd have without them." - Vincent BakerIMO, the "lite" game that relies wholly on fiat is no more or less fun than "Mother, may I". I.e., why did I need to pay money for the game if I'm just playing "Did not!"/"Did too!"?For me, rules-sufficient (I'm going to stop saying "heavy" here) is more fun, becasue there's a system in which all the participants work that serves as an equalizer. E.g., both the GM and I know that my PC can cover X distance in a round because the PC's movement is >= X (or possibly because the distance is rated at "Drama 1" and my Hero can accomplish anything of "Drama 5" or better in a scene wihtout rolling). If it's wholly up to whether the GM feels like letting the PC succeed, well, I guess I'd rather just go home a read a book (or write one).</blockquote>

Verification