stat abilities versus skills and saves

[Gunther]

While we're discussing that particular encounter, I'd like to ask if its the common practice to pit ability rolls versus skills (ie str versus discipline). Gunther has a pretty high strength, but if it were pitted against his discipline, it would be a hopeless contest.
 
I've seen it before on other quests with other GMs and it always struck me as a pretty uneven matchup. Say a generic character, not Gunther, has a strength of 36 (giving a +13 I think). Pitting this against a discipline skill of 35 is then an impossibility for the strength user.
 
Strength against strength, discipline against discipline, like versus like these are equitable matchups.
 
Same thing with say, strength against a fortitude save, or reflex,or willpower. A character can have a +25 to fort saves, strength maxes out at something like +15. There is very little chance for a character as strong as a titan to have a chance against the fort save.

[Alatriel]

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.

[Gunther]

Sure, I understand that.  GMs have a lot on their plate and a good chunk of it going on at the same time.  And this is something that I've seen since my day one anyway.  I couldnt count how many times I've seen it.

Is this maybe something the GMs can discuss and come back with a ruling on?  It'd be nice to have strength versus strength.  Or intelligence versus intelligence.  Discipline versus discipline.  Etc.

If Gunther's strength (as high as it is) was competing against his discipline, thats insta-fail for the strength.  Discipline is more or less twice strength, not even in the same ballpark.

I'm not sure if this would simplify it for GMs or make it even more complicated, or constrain your freedom to direct the story, but its been a failure for Gunther and every other player I've ever seen trying to make an ability score roll against a save or skill.  Maybe I'm not looking at it correctly, but it doesnt seem to be apples and apples.

[miltonyorkcastle]

For reference, Gunther, when I ask for an ability score check, I usually also take into account the character's level. So, for instance, if I ask for a strength check from Gunther, I'd see what you rolled, and then add half your level to the roll, which is another +10 or so. This is something I have long used as a GM to balance ability rolls vs. other types of rolls, but by no means is it standard with all GMs, here or elsewhere. Every GM has his/her play style, and I usually find it most fun to just go with however the story pans out regardless of the rolls.

[Nehetsrev]

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.

[Dorganath]

The only correct answer to this is: it depends.

As a general sort of statement, it isn't really appropriate to match an ability roll against a skill roll. They're not even remotely on the same scale. Every GM is going to have a slightly different approach, but there will likely be a core similarity to them as well.

In the case described in the original post, I would treat the Strength roll and the Discipline roll as separate phases of the same action.  The Strength roll would be against a DC or a scale to determine how hard one character hits/tackles/slams the other.  The discipline roll would then be against a DC, which itself may be based somewhat on the Strength roll, which would have to be overcome to succeed. This is similar to the rolls done for a Knockdown attempt, which requires a successful attack roll at -4, and the Discipline check is vs. the modified attack roll.

So in my book, skill vs. skill or attribute vs. attribute are good examples of direct contests.  If one character's modifier is greater than the other character's attribute, there's usually not going to be much contest there, but odd things happen.  If one character's modified skill is more than 20 over another character's, it's also not going to be much of a contest, but the chance of a critical success/fail is still there. Despite the vast disparity, at least such contests are on the same scale. When using disparate stats/abilities/skills against one another, some sort of intervening DC or scale of success is needed.  

Again, my opinion.  Your mileage may vary.

[Script Wrecked]

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.

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.

Otherwise, you can get a situation whereby a player may not try a particular action in one quest because on another quest they did the same thing and had a bad result, and then the DM goes at the end of the quest, I was waiting for you to do such-and-such action, and they explain why, and the DM goes, no, no, I calculate the DC this (different) way. *groan*

Technically, Discipline is used against the DC of an attack roll. To use it against an attribute modifier roll is incorrect. Unbuffed AM rolls have a maximum modifier of (about) +13, whereas unbuffed Skill rolls is +43. To use one against another is to compare apples with advocadoes.

[Rowana]

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

[miltonyorkcastle]

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.

Again, I'm not answering for all GMs, just myself and my style:

I don't mind at all if a player wants to give me an explanation about their character and how the character may want to attempt something. I may or may not alter my initial statement of how to resolve whatever the attempt may be, but at least in my case, it never hurts to ask.

Also, with regard to weapon finesse, I consider unarmed attacks to count as though affected by the feat, so if you tell me your character has weapon finesse, then I'll allow you to use dex for any melee based unarmed attack.

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.

[Script Wrecked]

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

You've really blown this up out of all proportion, Row.

All that I am asking is for consistency in how combat is handled. The only thing that went wrong is that a Discipline check (a skill) was used against a Strength check. The players have (tried to) pointed this out, specifically in accordance with your point:

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.

and (tried to) share their knowledge how a Skill check shouldn't be used against a Attribute check. I don't think its unreasonable for DMs to understand how combat works if they are going to simulate combat with rolls, and the appropriateness of which rolls to use against other rolls.

But instead, its become a big palaver with no more quests and DMs' personal play styles being infringed upon.

[Gunther]

I was actually looking to streamline the process, if possible.  Not my say, of course, but I dont like the idea of stopping mid quest to discuss the appropriateness of a particular roll and what the player thinks it should have been versus what the GM thinks it should have been.  I'd be willing to bet most players and GMs cringe at the thought of such a discussion going on.  Frankly I'd rather just take the guaranteed failure.

I dont think a hard and fast rule is necessary, but a general guideline maybe, that compares apples and apples, but leaves the GM the ultimate call.  Such as if a mage tried to stand in front of Gunther as opposed to a monk of the same level.  In that case, I can see the expert in hand to hand combat getting an advantage (to be determined by the GM).  Whereas a skinny little mage with (likely) no or minimal hand to hand combat skill might have a penalty beyond that already imposed by the strength disparity.

[Alatriel]

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 = 27


First 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.

[Gunther]

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.

[Rowana]

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.

 1) You cannot wide swath dictate things in an environment like this. You absolutely have to have a basic core principle and stick to it. There are too many variables and two few acceptable skills to serve as number basics for coping with a vs situation and the random circumstance result (dice). If we dictate something into a box it prevents GMs from accommodating players who try to do something outside of the box.

2) Feeding into point one, we cannot define things down because we cannot predict the needs of the player and GM. We -like- it that way. We like it that the players in a quest think of things we had no idea was coming. That's part of the fun of GMing. A number of times I've had to scramble and use skill for things that they weren't 'defined' for to complete an attempt at something for a player. In this way it paints the player into a box as well.

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. I'm telling you the reality of the request. It's not a matter of simply saying "We can no longer use a stat vs a skill roll in combat/any situations." Sometimes, that's all players have. Sometimes that's all an NPC has. What do we do in situations like that? We'd have to come to a 'consensus' as a Team on how to best deal with the situation. Folks, you've worked with us in a variety of ways, you know how long that can take for us to do these things because we work hard at being as completely fair as possible and there's only so much of us to go around. We'd have to come up with some way to allow players to do what they can already do now. We're slow. We all know it. We do the best we can with what we have.

The situation that prompted the thread is a non-issue. The numbers weren't even in question the way they were assumed to be. However, it seems like there's some built up irritation with a few people about how something's going down in quests from the tenor of this and the other thread. Even though this specific situation is completely understood now, people still want for a 'consistency'.

It cannot be stated enough folks, just ask your GM if you don't understand something or if you feel more information hasn't been considered. It's a no harm/no foul situation. We want to be on the level with you as much as possible. There's no reason to curtail usage of stats or skills and try to redefine how this already broken system can be allowed to work. There's no reason to establish some kind of consistency when there really is as much as can be had with having 14 different GMs. There's more consistency here than in some rotating GM PnP groups I know.

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.

~row

[Script Wrecked]

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.

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].

I don't feel like I have blown anything out of proportion.

Perhaps you should reread what you posted:


[INDENT]1) "Prepare to have no quests for a few months..."

2) No more new DMs due to the oppressive consistency requirement (paraphrased)

3) "This would sort of lock Gms into a single play style, or greatly inhibit the variety anyway."

...

"That's really a good thing. For everyone."[/INDENT]


and what had been posted prior to that.

I think it was already that way when I got here.

It wasn't. In no way can it be construed from what was posted prior that in any way compares to your three points above.

No offense to anyone meant because sometimes that can happen even with the best of intentions.

It hadn't.

Consistency in how combat is handled?

Consistent with the game engine that we use to play this game.

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.

...

That's a straw man.

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.)

Possibly your four examples could serve as some sort of guideline, which the DMs, having read here, could consistently apply.

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.

Haven't asked for this.

I'm not making threats and I'm not being over-dramatic.

You did; three of them as consequences to this request for consistency.

...

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.

That's why we love you guys.

[Rowana]

Script, what is it exactly you're asking for here? I feel like I'm responding directly to what you're asking for and you're telling me I'm not and indicating I'm trying to bully the server with threats to boot. So, please, outline for me exactly where you feel the miscommunication is. Please define in detail what it is that you feel would be more consistent with the game engine then what's happening now.  Frankly, the wording in this latest post is so short and devoid of anything but half stated correction I can't glean anything from it but snark and nastiness. If it's intentional great, you've accomplished your goal. If not, please use a lot more words to explain to us what it is you are trying to get across.

You say you want something constant with the game engine and I'm telling you what's been going on since I have become a GM here if not before, is -already- as consistent as it can get in a relatively easy way. It's pretty generic D'nD stock GMing where I come from. Anything more critical and defined is going to take a lot of back and forth and it's going to cause some real issues. Let me state again, those examples I gave are already what we have in place. Those were real life examples I listed, save the exact numbers in the math because I couldn't recall them off the top of my head. So why do we need to do something more? Perhaps this why I feel it's a big to do about nothing. It feels completely blown out of of proportion even before I stated a word one on the matter.

Additionally, I'm just going to state that I'm once again offended by this assertion that I'm making threats despite the fact that I am doing no such thing. I think I'm in the best position to decide whether I'm stating a fact or I'm making a threat. I'm not trying to punish anyone, nor am I trying to wield some kind of clout to get everyone to 'sit down and shut up.' I'm stating in open fact directly to the entire internet that the fact is, if we have to rewrite a system of how skills and stats can and cannot be used in combat that meets some kind of new standard (that I don't yet even understand, apparently) that it's going to put things into a full halt for as long as it takes to get something in place that's fair and up to snuff for this server. More rules and procedures are a deterrent. You guys have been telling us that for ages about things like the CA process (not that we've ever disagreed with the point!). It's a deterrent for new blood and it's a deterrent to existing GMs because it's yet another thing we have to contend with to be a proper GM around here. It wears us out.

So break it down for me. Tell me with as much detail as you can muster what it is that you want to make the system more consistent with the game engine. I'm gladly accepting logs at this point because I really want to know what this big production is all about. Don't give me something vague though because that's clearly not working out for us.

~row

[Gunther]

I'm sorry I ever mentioned anything.  Years ago, I recall GM's on quests doing stat rolls versus skill rolls and saves.  

Saw the same thing happen again (whoever was to blame for it).  It leads to inevitable failure for one party.

Thought I'd address it here and see if there was a consensus, if not, see if we could all get on the same page for the betterment of our players and GMs.

Not sure, but I'd guess just about every GM has given an opinion here and we're all pretty well aware of the situation on rolls and how it works.

I'm content in that.  Lets just let it go.

[Dorganath]

*pulls the thread over*

Hey guys, let's stay focused and say what we mean and such.

Taking several snips from threads semi-out-of-order to make a point...

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.

That applies to forums too.  Stop...listen...ask. Very simple, and it saves a lot of hassle.

At the same time, try to be clear in what you mean. It may sound good in your head, but the rest of us just hear static.

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.

Row's point was that "consistency" seems such an easy thing to ask for, but it's really limiting to the players and GMs.  Obviously we're not talking about massive deviations from the rule system, but rather making the best, in one's opinion, of what the system gives us.  I second the notion that this (and other recent requests for an "official" stance) does not really warrant a specific rule.

PnP groups with multiple, rotating GMs will still have differences in how things are handled, what is permitted, etc.  This is no different than here.  GMs have to adapt.  Players have to adapt.  There is no One Right Way to play in a d20 system....thank goodness. *winks*

Moving on...

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 = 27


First 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.

...and...

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.

So taking this in context, I move onto this...

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].

This stance has been somewhat negated by the above, in my opinion. It's no longer appropriate to debate on the contents of one post which have been superseded by another (or two, in this case). Yes, it was still "valid" when you and Rowana made your respective statements, but since the context has since changed, it might be best not to put this matter under such a strong lens, as it seems to me that there are incorrect assumptions being made in multiple places.  This is not a debate we need to have.

It has since been stated that this whole issue (apparently) seems to be due to a dual mistake. The first one being Gunther's in emoting and picking a Strength check on his own without a GM asking for something in particular such as an attack roll.  The second was by Alatriel, who apparently moved forward by asking for a Discipline roll. Is this worth over a dozen posts? Probably not. It was a snap call on a snap roll.  Not the end of the world, but also something that could have been handled differently in some way by one or more parties.

In truth, it really doesn't do any good to lay any fault or blame on this. It happened.  Reconcile and move on.

For what it's worth, I might have accepted the initial Strength roll but then asked Hector for Strength and Discipline rolls.  The first would make it a contest between the pusher and the pushed, while the other would be used to determine if the pushed stayed on his feet.  Sure, maybe an attack roll would be more accurate, but if both were standing next to each other (as opposed to rushing from several feet away), a to-hit roll seems kind of pointless, so again...flexibility.

I've already stated that a straight Attribute vs. Skill comparison doesn't work. While it may seem like this was what happens in a situation like that which launched this thread, one cannot always know what DC math the GM is doing on their side of the screen.  Don't assume.  

To repeat (and again put things slightly out of order):

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.

It's pretty common practice for GMs to state this up front at the beginning of the quest or on the GM's thread. I don't know if it was done this time or not, but if there is to be a guideline, it is this:[INDENT]Try not to spam a GM with rolls before being asked for one.
[/INDENT]Note, I said "try".  It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but it makes things better for everyone. From personal experience, I know that when a GM starts receiving a ton of rolls from people all emoting different actions, what is being rolled for what actions can get pretty confusing for the GM. It can also be a wasted roll on the part of the player.

Haven't asked for this.

In a way, you did, when you simply stated:

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.

It's a little unfair, when Rowana responded, to come back and tell her she's wrong based on a later clarification of what was meant by "consistency". It was not a clear request initially; the "straw man" was due to faulty and/or incomplete wording. In fairness, I had a similar set of thoughts as to what was meant by consistency, in that all GMs should handle situations in the exact same way regardless. In this point, I disagree fully; we don't need any more standards on this than we already have. I think GMs need to have room to flex and handle situations as they come, provided they are workable within the mechanics of this system.

Yes, I realize that there may have been fault in interpretation, potentially brought on by an incomplete description of what was wanted.  Again, it happened. Reconcile and move on.  

Yes, I'm speaking generally.

Remember, it's a game.

Be excellent to each other.

Carry on.

[Script Wrecked]

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

[Rowana]

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

Regarding (2), Do you know of any DMs doing this right now?

~row