I think, unfortunately, this is one of those things that tends to be one of those GM to GM things. There's not always a specific call on which stat to use vs. what. I will tell you that I don't always choose the same one on my quest, it depends on various factors of the incident and how it's emoted. Sometimes it's also a matter of trying to not have to roll a ton of different rolls. For instance, if one was trying to push someone down or out of the way, it may be construed as a melee check and a strength check combined, or even a d20 for knockdown or any or all of them. And the opposing roll may be reflex, dodge, strength or discipline, or a combination of all of them. Sometimes, when you're trying to move quickly as a GM, you just pick the one that seems to fit the best at the time, and not all GMs will necessarily choose the same one.
Here's another question for us to ponder: If the GM calls for a strength check in a situation where a dexterity-build character is trying to stop an NPC from getting away or something, should the player feel obligated to point out (or remind) the GM that their character uses their reaction speed, their dexterity and their oponent's own mass and momentum in their attempt to stop their target rather than brute-strength type tactics, and thus ask the GM to allow a dexterity check, or reflex check to be rolled instead?I guess this question stems from my inability to agree with the notion that higher strength equates to higher accuracy in an attempt to hit something as the default operation of a character's melee attack score pushes on us. In example, the default calculation is to add a character's Strength modifier to their chance to hit in a melee attack. And yes, I do know that the Weapon Finesse feat allows to add the Dex modifier when using certain weapons instead, but here my point is that by default Str is used. I can see greater strength lending to increased damage, but not so much increased chance to hit. You know what I mean? But that's D&D system for you, I guess.Ending ramble now.
Hokay. Regarding ultimate consistency skill by skill, process by process for each GM on the team. 1) Prepare to have no quests for a few months while we try to discuss across time zones and compromise every single GM's play-style into one stock interpretation of D20. Particularly NWN, but d20 systems do not well cover all the possible scenarios and one of the qualities of GMs who run in that style is their ability to adapt to the situation to make it work and allow players to accomplish (or at least attempt) to accomplish what they want. 2) One of the best things about this server is allowance for all skill level/RP style of player and the openness for any level of experienced person to join the GM team. A consistency like what is suggested, teaching all the GMs what will and will not be allowed for each GM's interpretation of the rules etc, will increase the wait time new GMs will be under before they can start running quests. It's also likely to deter people from applying. 3) This would sort of lock Gms into a single play style, or greatly inhibit the variety anyway. I know I for one would consider resigning my Quest GM status. As much as I love to run stuff for you guys, I have a hard enough time scheduling in the odd quest around my duties and RL and if I had to contend with rewriting the way I run d20 to comply with some sort of universal code-of-skills on top of that (breaking yeas of habits in the way I think about things) ... Yeah add another layer in the delays on quests and probably some Gms who will quit rather than run in a style that is unagreeable to their ability/personal style. This isn't about one single skill being used in a different way than is cited by the definition. This would scale upward pretty quickly. Don't get me wrong, I understand the desire for consistency, but I really think, for the above stated reasons that it's better to allow GMs the same freedom we allow players to be who they are at the level of experience that they are at the playstyle that they are than constrain them further into a box. We already mandate what kind of quests they/we can run, we already mandate what they/we can and can't do with lore. This would be yet another level of control being exerted and I don't think this kind of consistency is better over the ability to just discuss things on a personal level with the GM and let it roll out in a compromise or understanding between the GMs and players. It takes away anther layer of the desired interpersonal connection we want with each other. If someone doesn't understand or doesn't like the way a situation came down, they really just need to talk it out with the GM on a one on one (or the group of you with the GM) at some point. Openly on the forums like this, in follow up on the quest, in PMs, on IRC, anything, but just discuss it and first understand why the GM did what they did, second add in the fact that your style and their style may not line up 100% or even 90%, and lastly, accept that mistakes are made by GMs. We have 4-20+ of you to juggle at once typically and sometimes we make a bum call, and sometimes we do something that makes perfect sense with regards to the RP of the situation, even if it doesn't make sense to the players. Particularly if the situation is on going, it's hard for us to discuss it in full because it destroys the whole point of having a quest that is unknown for players. We have to adapt a system that is not made for Layonara and use it to the best of our ability, just like players do. It's seriously not perfect. It's seriously not even close to perfect. In my personal opinion it's way worse than D'nD in the NWN incarnation but GMs can make up for that up by being allowed to roll with it. They may not do the same thing twice because this is an evolving, learning experience. That's really a good thing. For everyone.~row
If someone doesn't understand or doesn't like the way a situation came down, they really just need to talk it out with the GM on a one on one (or the group of you with the GM) at some point. Openly on the forums like this, in follow up on the quest, in PMs, on IRC, anything, but just discuss it and first understand why the GM did what they did, second add in the fact that your style and their style may not line up 100% or even 90%, and lastly, accept that mistakes are made by GMs.
Sometimes a Strength vs a Discipline check (Or other stat vs skill) is completely and totally acceptable. Should it be a straight across the board comparison? No. And it's already been stated above that we don't do it that way. Usually one creates the DC for the other. How a GM generates that is up to his or her own style. Some of us use pre-generated charts from compatible systems, some of us use our own charts, some of us go way on the fly and generate it as the circumstances dictate.
I don't feel like I have blown anything out of proportion.
I think it was already that way when I got here.
No offense to anyone meant because sometimes that can happen even with the best of intentions.
Consistency in how combat is handled?
Do folks feel like combat hasn't been handled correctly for the past 5 or so years? I don't really understand why we need to establish a process for something that was a non-issue to being with. What Alatriel is describing in her two related posts, seems very much like I handle things on my quests. This thread was established based on a mis-assumption. However, we're still asking for the 'consistency' establishment. All over this forum are requests from the community to redefine how we handle all sorts of things, asking us to put rules and explain things to the Nth detail about what is and is not acceptable. We've resisted doing that time and time again in most cases for two basic reasons....
Examples: -Bard have no skill at 'heartsong'. Perform is often used in this way but sometimes it's not appropriate and other skills are used, such as heal or spellcraft check. Sometimes it's a straight Wis check (ah, the bane of bards).-Lore users have no way to define down what their 'lore' is about in a quick and accessible way for GMs unless we just start tracking what every player might have a little knowledge about and what percentage of their lore skill they can use for each. Sometimes having 232402 points in Lore is just unfair to players who actually have a history in a certain area but only have a handful of points because they are a class that doesn't get many. So other skills or even stats are used instead (usually Intelligence).-Player wants to do something there's no real skill for during a combat situation. Using Discipline to make sure they have the right steadiness, or the right focus to make it happen is far more fair than asking them to roll Concentration, a skill largely for casters.-When a player has no points in a certain skill but wants to try something outside their character point value it is entirely appropriate to let them roll their base stat to set a DC modifier or vice versa having their opponent roll their skill to set the DC for the player to meet. Does that mean that a fighter's +45 (anything) should mean that the DC for a player's Strength/Dex/Wis/Con/Whatever roll is a d20+45? No way. It means you take that roll+45 and you compare it to either your chart or the circumstances all together and you establish based on that roll what is an appropriate DC for that strength check. (I'll give him a DC of /5. Fighter rolls a 14 + 45 =59. 59/5 = DC of 11 rounded down or 12 rounded up for the player.)
Asking for us to enforce some kind of static standard would make us have to carefully look over every possible situation to figure out if what we have is going to work.
I'm not making threats and I'm not being over-dramatic.
...If you don't understand something, or don't like how something went down? Just ask! We aren't perfect and we're open to sorting this stuff out just like what was done without placing another rule down.
EDIT: I want to reiterate something Row mentioned. The key thing to any situation in a quest is communication, and that of course works both ways, between GM and player. If you don't understand, want to point out something different, don't be afraid to go for it. The worse thing you get is a 'no', which means you're not any worse off than when you started. And sometimes those no's allow you to explore your character in ways you've never tried before. If you can't come to an agreement during the quest, go with the GM call at the time, then come back later (as has been mentioned) bia IRC or PM and talk about it. Be respectful and explain yourself, and we'll get it figured out, hopefully with better understanding on both sides when we're through.
When you are in a PnP group with only one DM, that can be excused. However, when we're playing with multiple DMs on the same server, there needs to be consistancy.
Alright, after reviewing my logs of the quest and this particular incident, I would like to explain something.[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Sat Aug 04 19:18:28] Gunther N'Diknik: [Party] *knocks Hector aside* *str check*[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Sat Aug 04 19:18:28] Gunther N'Diknik: Strength Check: 9 + 12 = 21[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Sat Aug 04 19:18:34] Layonara Quest Area: Road Hector Bael: //str or discipline?[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Sat Aug 04 19:18:34] Hector Bael: [Party] //str or discipline?[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Sat Aug 04 19:18:38] Layonara Quest Area: Road Diva : discipline[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Sat Aug 04 19:18:38] Diva : discipline[CHAT WINDOW TEXT] [Sat Aug 04 19:18:42] SERVER : [DM] Hector Bael: Discipline Check: 8 + 19 = 27First of all, the Strength check from Gunther was not requested. It was simply put out there. If Gunther had waited, I would have likely made him roll for knockdown, not roll for strength. But in the effort to not have to keep backtracking, since we were already in the process of trying to clean up a mess, I made a call. My mistake is that perhaps I should have simply told Gunther that the roll that he chose was not appropriate, but since it was out there, I was attempting to not have to continue to make people make more rolls. This is one of the reasons that I've said before that please don't simply assume that the roll you make is the right one. But once it's made, I will very often just go with it. In this situation, you can surmise that Gunther put no real skill into his effort and simply slapped at Hector, which, due to Hector's skill in not being knocked down- his discipline- he held his ground. I never requested the strength check. It was not my choice to use it in the first place, but given the situation and circumstances, after reading it again, I stand by my call. This is why it's not always so easy to simply standardize things. I do hope that clarifies things.
Ok, if there has to be fault assigned, its mine.But can there be a guideline so that we know what to look for in the future? So we are comparing apples and apples, not having discussions like this, either on the forums or during a quest. I cant speak for everybody, but I dont think anybody wants it more complicated.
The point being inquired upon by Gunther was that it was (apparently) a straight comparison. This was not addressed in the DM's first [post=1742965]response[/post].
But can there be a guideline so that we know what to look for in the future?
This is one of the reasons that I've said before that please don't simply assume that the roll you make is the right one.
Haven't asked for this.
Script, what is it exactly you're asking for here?
When DMs are simulating combat(1), that it is done the same way as the game engine(2).(1) which is a good thing to do; I actually enjoy it when its done and did so at the incident in question(2) that would be inclusive of not making (unmodified) Skill checks versus Attribute checks