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="Ourph" data-source="post: 2390052" data-attributes="member: 20239"><p>And I'm saying that, despite the fact that there are codified modifiers in the RAW, the fact that the RAW also leaves the final DC ultimately in the hands of the DM means that a D&D player also <u>has to ask</u>, otherwise he has no idea whether his PC is capable of making the jump. The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs. They do not, in fact, keep crappy GMs from screwing up the game - because the GM is empowered to decide which modifiers come into play and is also empowered to provide his own situational "circumstance" modifiers. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Does your DM draw out hindered terrain your player can't see? Does your DM draw out wind currents? Does your DM draw out invisible barriers? There is always the possibility you know less than you think you do. Interaction with the DM is the only sure way to know what modifiers apply and even then you may not be entitled to know some of them until the action is attempted.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The "DM's buddy" is not a rule, it is a suggested guideline (it describes itself as such). The same exact section of the rules makes it quite clear that the DM can set modifiers beyond +/-2 and/or may set multiple +/-2 modifiers. It's obvious from the RAW that the enumerated modifiers are concrete but that those are not the only modifiers allowed and that the DM is ultimately in charge of setting the DC for any task.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My point is, so does the DC in a D&D game. The guidelines may be concrete, but the ultimate number is still based on a DM judgement call.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you keep making the mistake that I'm saying C&C isn't arbitrary. I'm not. C&C is arbitrary; and (despite the facade of enumerated modifiers in the rulebooks) so is D&D by the RAW. The DM sets the DC, whatever modifiers pertain to a situation, pertain because he has decided that the situation includes the factors that trigger those modifiers.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, the DM can tell you X, Y and Z situation exists and you can look in the rulebook and see that X,Y and Z situations give certain modifiers. The DM is still making the decision about which situations exist. The process is no less "arbitrary" than C&C, it just takes a more obscure form that gives the illusion that the DM is somehow constrained and that the players are somehow empowered. It may very well make some players feel more comfortable, but it really changes nothing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As I said, the formula sets the base DC, it doesn't set the final DC. The DM sets the final DC by deciding which modifiers apply and which don't. If the DM decides no modifiers apply and that the DC set forth in the formula is the one he will use, it's still the DM making the decision - not the formula in the rulebooks. Deciding <u>not</u> to change the base DC is still making a decision. The point being, until a player consults the DM, he doesn't know whether the base DC supplied by the rules is valid or not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The modifiers may not vary because your GM has had a bad day or because your GM feels like going easy on you, but I don't believe for a minute that the final DC won't vary depending on those variables if it <u>would</u> vary according to those things in a rules-lite system where the modifiers aren't spelled out.</p><p></p><p>If you've got a GM who cares about being impartial, fair and consistent, he's going to be so whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system. If you've got a GM who is out to screw you or create his story independent of what the dice roll, he's going to do it whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system. I know it may feel that way, but the rules cannot protect you from bad GMing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What I'm saying is, I don't see a discernable difference between the two. Both require the player to communicate with the DM and (with any kind of a decent DM) asking should get both players to the same place (i.e. - having a reasonable idea of how likely he is to succeed at a specific task). With a lousy DM, both players still end up in the same place as well. </p><p></p><p>What I'm getting from you is that you think the guidelines provided by D&D will take a bad GM, who would normally make arbitrary and unfair judgements during the game, and turn him into a decent GM; and that, conversely, a GM who runs a fair, reasonable D&D game will suddenly become unfair and arbitrary if he starts using a rules-lite system like C&C. I disagree that system can fix a lousy DM or ruin a good one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 2390052, member: 20239"] And I'm saying that, despite the fact that there are codified modifiers in the RAW, the fact that the RAW also leaves the final DC ultimately in the hands of the DM means that a D&D player also [u]has to ask[/u], otherwise he has no idea whether his PC is capable of making the jump. The codified modifiers are a safety blanket for players who fear crappy GMs. They do not, in fact, keep crappy GMs from screwing up the game - because the GM is empowered to decide which modifiers come into play and is also empowered to provide his own situational "circumstance" modifiers. Does your DM draw out hindered terrain your player can't see? Does your DM draw out wind currents? Does your DM draw out invisible barriers? There is always the possibility you know less than you think you do. Interaction with the DM is the only sure way to know what modifiers apply and even then you may not be entitled to know some of them until the action is attempted. The "DM's buddy" is not a rule, it is a suggested guideline (it describes itself as such). The same exact section of the rules makes it quite clear that the DM can set modifiers beyond +/-2 and/or may set multiple +/-2 modifiers. It's obvious from the RAW that the enumerated modifiers are concrete but that those are not the only modifiers allowed and that the DM is ultimately in charge of setting the DC for any task. My point is, so does the DC in a D&D game. The guidelines may be concrete, but the ultimate number is still based on a DM judgement call. I think you keep making the mistake that I'm saying C&C isn't arbitrary. I'm not. C&C is arbitrary; and (despite the facade of enumerated modifiers in the rulebooks) so is D&D by the RAW. The DM sets the DC, whatever modifiers pertain to a situation, pertain because he has decided that the situation includes the factors that trigger those modifiers. Yes, the DM can tell you X, Y and Z situation exists and you can look in the rulebook and see that X,Y and Z situations give certain modifiers. The DM is still making the decision about which situations exist. The process is no less "arbitrary" than C&C, it just takes a more obscure form that gives the illusion that the DM is somehow constrained and that the players are somehow empowered. It may very well make some players feel more comfortable, but it really changes nothing. As I said, the formula sets the base DC, it doesn't set the final DC. The DM sets the final DC by deciding which modifiers apply and which don't. If the DM decides no modifiers apply and that the DC set forth in the formula is the one he will use, it's still the DM making the decision - not the formula in the rulebooks. Deciding [u]not[/u] to change the base DC is still making a decision. The point being, until a player consults the DM, he doesn't know whether the base DC supplied by the rules is valid or not. The modifiers may not vary because your GM has had a bad day or because your GM feels like going easy on you, but I don't believe for a minute that the final DC won't vary depending on those variables if it [u]would[/u] vary according to those things in a rules-lite system where the modifiers aren't spelled out. If you've got a GM who cares about being impartial, fair and consistent, he's going to be so whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system. If you've got a GM who is out to screw you or create his story independent of what the dice roll, he's going to do it whether he's using D&D or C&C as his system. I know it may feel that way, but the rules cannot protect you from bad GMing. What I'm saying is, I don't see a discernable difference between the two. Both require the player to communicate with the DM and (with any kind of a decent DM) asking should get both players to the same place (i.e. - having a reasonable idea of how likely he is to succeed at a specific task). With a lousy DM, both players still end up in the same place as well. What I'm getting from you is that you think the guidelines provided by D&D will take a bad GM, who would normally make arbitrary and unfair judgements during the game, and turn him into a decent GM; and that, conversely, a GM who runs a fair, reasonable D&D game will suddenly become unfair and arbitrary if he starts using a rules-lite system like C&C. I disagree that system can fix a lousy DM or ruin a good one. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Interesting Ryan Dancey comment on "lite" RPGs
Top