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: 2392639" data-attributes="member: 6777">Right, but most of those conditions get addressed in the books, or have guidance, or else are covered by something else. E.g., wet floors and losoe stones are handled by a Balance check; they don't affect the Jump DC. See, the nifty thing is that last sentence was basically the DMG's ruling, and won't change from session to session. I like that kind of game.And, as I've said, most of the conditions you use in your example have rules that relate to them. The DM can simply lay out the conditions and I will know almost exactly what rules apply. I don't have to wait for him to say: "So... you'll need to... make a DC35 Str check." Not to metion deal with the same situation being handled by differently next session.But I like the "complexity". <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I like having a page in the book that shows a baseline for what a Jump +10 can do. I don't like just knowing my PC is "good at Strength stuff", yet having no idea whether he can jump 2' or 10'. If that's the case, I don't see the point in tracking how good a jumper he is anyway.He can declare it hindering terrain, or say it's like climbing, or require a balance check. I know that sounds like a lot of fiat, but at least those choices generally correspond to specific bonuses or DCs.Like I said, I don't pretend to be well versed in C&C. I'm simply using some details relayed to me about to make some points about what I do and don't like in a system, and when I think "lite" works and when I think it doesn't. I'm not trying to slam on C&C (though I feel confident that it is not the RPG for me).Anyway...Mearls main points seem to be that:* "Lite" systems are often assumed to be inherrently more "mature" in terms of design; i.e., an ideal to be attained.* Designers creating games buy into this, and thus strive for "lite".* Said designers then often confuse "lite" with just "having less rules".The end result then being the kind of "rules-insufficient" RPG that's really just a glorified die mechanic with some commentary attached, and not a "rules-sufficient" RPG that genuinely meets all the player's needs with a minimum of rules.It'd be interesting to learn what RPGs were used in Dancey's testing. If they were any of the many "rules-insufficient" RPGs I've seen held up as great design, I have no doubt that game play was no more expedient than a heavier ruleset.</blockquote>

Verification