Because Sunboy requested it.

The question was, if it isn't the GMs job in every game to keep track of every single element of the game world and decide if it is comparable.

Lets start with the most important one: D&D. The rules explicitly tell how things are done, how tough monsters are, what kind of oposition is suitable for the PCs...
If you invest in campaign books you know who the movers and shakers in the world are and how they will most likely react, if the PCs piss them off...etc.

Does that make for less character-driven play: hell no!
The PCs have their stats figured out BEFORE play begins and are clear on what they are capable of. It isn't "describe in more detail how exactly your PC is trying to open this door, because I'm unsure, if you are doing it right". You just do it and then move on to something interesting.
Thats how I see it, anyway.

More tomorrow.
Have fun discussing until then.

I'm definitely more on the "Clear defined rules" side of things than the "GM arbitration" side. Hell, I would like DND a lot more if it came up with some kind of Encounter Budget for the GM per adventure. That would be awesome.

I think it depends on the game. I like D&D's clear cut nature as well as Shadowrun 4th's looser setup. As long as it's a good game, I'll play it.