The World of Layonara  Forums

Author Topic: stat abilities versus skills and saves  (Read 2574 times)

Script Wrecked

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #20 on: August 08, 2012, 06:53:21 pm »
Quote from: Rowana
Quote from: Script Wrecked
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


I dare to say that any DMs who have been reading this thread who were making (unmodified) Skill checks versus Attribute checks will no longer. That leaves any DMs who might have been making (unmodified) Skill checks versus Attribute checks who haven't read this thread.

If I encounter any DMs making such checks, I will endeavour to suggest (at the end of the session) they have a read of this thread.
 

Aerimor

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #21 on: August 08, 2012, 08:26:14 pm »
I reserve the right to make modified and unmodified skill, attribute or pure die checks against DC's, modified and unmodified skill, attribute or pure die rolls as I see fit.  

My only caveat being player verses player. I try to make those fair and mechanical. But these can also be altereted by situation, planning and trickery.  If you are trying to tackle and pin the guy that soaked himself in oil before hand, it's not going to be an equal roll, there will be bonuses to the oiled guy unless you do something to counter his advantage.

In player verses world or monster, I am of the belief that story, situations, hidden and not to be revealed at the time DM secrets trump mechanical rolling and perceived fairness.  1's do not always fail and 20's sure in the heck do not always succeed.

At least I am up front and consistent about this.

~Nimrod
 

Dorganath

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #22 on: August 08, 2012, 09:20:08 pm »
It is not appropriate to assume what a GM does or does not do with die rolls based on what one sees or does not see in the in-game window. Though a GM may ask for what may seem a mismatched set of rolls, there may, in fact, be a reason, a DC one is not aware of or any number of other things going on. If there are questions or concerns, address them right there (i.e. "Wouldn't an X roll be more appropriate?") or after the session.  One should not presume that a GM is making inappropriate comparisons; one should ask...not point...ask.

The GM is not always right, but neither are players who think they know better.

Food for thought.

Work it out.

Have fun.
 

Script Wrecked

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #23 on: August 09, 2012, 12:03:09 am »
Quote from: Dorganath
It is not appropriate to assume what a GM does or does not do with die rolls based on what one sees or does not see in the in-game window. Though a GM may ask for what may seem a mismatched set of rolls, there may, in fact, be a reason, a DC one is not aware of or any number of other things going on. If there are questions or concerns, address them right there (i.e. "Wouldn't an X roll be more appropriate?") or after the session.  One should not presume that a GM is making inappropriate comparisons; one should ask...not point...ask.


That is what this thread is, and look what it has gotten. I don't think Gunther will be [POST=1743056]asking[/POST] anything for while.

Quote from: Dorganath
The GM is not always right...


Explain how a DM can be not right when they:

Quote from: Aerimor
... reserve the right to make modified and unmodified skill, attribute or pure die checks against DC's, modified and unmodified skill, attribute or pure die rolls as I see fit.



Quote from: Dorganath
...but neither are players who think they know better.


The trouble seems to be getting the acknowledgment when they are correct.
 

Dorganath

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #24 on: August 09, 2012, 01:12:29 am »
This has all been explained already.

As is evident here and here, the core of this is a series of mistakes and misunderstandings. The initial roll was Gunther's, who chose to roll a Strength roll rather than an attack. I wasn't there. I can only guess, but as far as I can tell, this was not an attempt at a Knockdown attack but something more like a nudge out of the way. If it were a Knockdown, then yes, it should have been an attack roll vs. a Discipline check. To me, it doesn't look like that was the case. It seems like this has been explained already, so I don't understand why it continues to be an issue.

As far as specific objections to Aerimor's comments (and similar ones from other GMs), it seems to me that it is being interpreted as reserving the right to just make stuff up at will, whether it fits or not.

That's not it at all.

What it means is a GM reserving the right to adapt and make judgment calls for what rolls may be appropriate for a given RPed situation.  Of course we, as a group, will make every effort to make the contests fair and reasonable, and when disparate comparisons exist (i.e. attribute vs. skill), I would like to think our GMs are intelligent enough to not make it a 1:1 comparison but rather use some fair and reasonable DC to make it work out. It won't show up in the combat trace, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

In my opinion, there's more than one way to roll the dice for knocking someone aside. One way is through the Knockdown mechanic, but that is not the only way.

So was Gunther right in asking? Absolutely!  Ask, ask, ask!

Was he right to assume which roll to use?  Probably not, though I don't know if it was mentioned before to not do that.  No big deal though either way. I see people do it all the time even when a GM says not to.  He's certainly not unique in that. No real rules were broken. He didn't do anything "wrong", though possibly it was incorrect.  Again, no big deal.

Should Alatriel have asked for something different? Maybe, maybe not.  If Gunther was bull-rushing Hector, then perhaps. It seems the situation was something a little less aggressive, however. She went with the flow. Perhaps the thought process wasn't clear to the player in this case, but he did the right thing by asking. Again, not a big deal.

Hopefully both of them (and really everyone reading this thread) can take something positive away from this thread rather than assigning blame, getting frustrated by what we think is being said and really try to approach this all reasonably in order to gain understanding.

NWN...and really d20 in full... does not have rules, skills and attributes to cover all situations. Sometimes GMs have to adapt, even in a pen-and-paper situation, where arguably the list of feats and skills is greater than we have in NWN. As such, it is counterproductive to set down an edict to limit this ability to adapt.  

Once more for clarity, no one's talking about a wanton and systemic disregard for the rule system or applying random and unfair comparisons on a regular basis without regard for the inequality. I don't think any GM has advocated that in this thread or any other.
 

Rowana

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #25 on: August 09, 2012, 02:04:51 am »
I have more I'm going to follow up with regarding Script_Wrecks post, over and above what Dorganath has said. But there is something very, very important I would like to clarify and I only want Gunther and Alatriel to respond for now.

Gentleman, Lady, between you two, the situation is resolved, is it not? Does it feel clear to the both of you what happened and you both have learned something about how to handle these situations in the future, correct? Gunther might try to state his actions and move forward with the request of the GM so he rolls what the GM needs. Alatriel will do a little less 'rolling with it' and a little more telling a player to disregard their unasked for roll and doing things more to the way she needs for them to for clarity on all sides.

Perhaps I'm WAY off base but, to me, it looks like a win-win on both sides. It looks like both player and GM learned something. It looks like the community had an opportunity to learn right along side them.  GMs can note that they should go ahead and disregard unnecessary rolls and that they should make sure that players understand what rolls are for. Players see that it's important to not roll and assume but to state their action and then wait for roll requests (just like PnP situtaions I might add).

Further, I think Gunther is shying away from the resulting stink that this thread has raised up around him rather than any retributive action as a result of his asking or that he's being told how 'wrong' he was. I think that Alatriel maybe feels some kinship regarding the drama that is just blooming in here. However, Gunther seems clear on things, Alatriel seems clear on things. I fervently hope Gunther doesn't feel like he had a finger wagged at him but more that things  were sorted out between he and Alatriel and now they understand both what happened and a little more about each other.

I want to further say that no one is upset at Gunther or what he's done. We are -glad- you asked for clarification. Delighted even! It -seems-  like you and Alatriel have sorted things out. We are glad that this was  done all out in the open where everyone has had a chance to refresh,  remind, learn, whathaveyou.

Gunther, Alatriel, please correct any of the above if I am even remotely wrong. Even a smidgen, a hair, a millisecond. Gunther, if you feel ganged up on, or if you feel like you're being told to take your lumps and 'like it', if you feel like we're telling you to 'sit down and shut it,' I would really like for you to speak up and say so. The public is here as your witness to defend you from the overbearing, thoughtless brutes we GMs are, should it be necessary. If you are feeling like we've smacked you around, if you can't see yourself asking for clarity in public ever again because we've just trod all over you, use as many words as it will take to make you feel better because frankly, we'll have deserved every line. (Just remember to keep the family friendly language and all. *gestures vaguely* )

I'm completely, utterly, dead serious here. If you're feeling like we're upset with you or acting retributively toward you, I'd like for you to tell us that so we can work on modifying how we clarify a thing for the future because that is NOT the intent here at all. Even better, if you can pinpoint for us how you were made to feel that way, add that in. Critique candidly away.

Seriously.
All.
Ears.

Enough belaboring from me. Again, for ease of clarity: Please, no one post until we hear from both Gunther and Alatriel on the matter.

~row
 

Shiokara

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #26 on: August 09, 2012, 10:30:39 am »
Players have gotten sour at DMs since the dawn of Greyhawk. If the original grievance is settled, can we just move on and take things on a personal, case-by-case basis as they should be?

All this back and forth--yeesh.

Players: Don't roll play. If you do, then you are taking your dice and your life in your own hands.

DMs: Thank you for volunteering. Please try to read our minds next time.
_________________
Note: The above is meant to be read in a lighthearted way. Sarcasm is common here on the East coast, but it doesn't come across text so well.
 

Shiokara

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #27 on: August 09, 2012, 10:38:59 am »
If the call that has risen around this issue is an attempt to come up with some type of comprehensive system of basic actions and checks, then I'm wholly uninterested. Issues of questing should just be handled on a personal, case-by-case basis. It's not like they arise all that often, and quite frankly I'm not interested in having a list I can review to police DM dice checks.
 

Alatriel

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #28 on: August 09, 2012, 10:52:15 am »
This was the reason I pulled the logs in and clarified the actual situation that occurred, to clear up any confusion and assumptions being made.  

Quote from: Script Wrecked
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 was not to assign blame to Gunther or even try to shut him up.  I don't have any problem with him asking for clarification, but when someone asks for clarification, I will do my best to do just that.  It seems that this has turned from a bit of confusion about a certain situation in a quest or even maybe a broader generalized question into a "players vs. GMs" issue which isn't going to help any of us at all.  I don't think, in my opinion, that this was ever whether Gunther or I should "learn our lesson" about how wrong we were.  I know that when people start dissecting other people's posts things always go downhill fast.  Every GM that has spoken up has echoed similar sentiments on this issue.  Basically, if you want the mystery to remain in the game and not have to write it yourself, you have to trust us to do our jobs.
 

miltonyorkcastle

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2012, 03:20:26 pm »
I sort of hate to dredge this up after four days, but I feel like what I'm putting below in this post is important; so important, in fact, when I first wrote it and then saw that Row asked to wait for posts from certain people before posting again, I saved it, figuring that the two folks we were waiting on would post that day. That didn't happen, and, well, I don't want this to go unsaid, especially given the current discussions regarding the betterment and growth of the community.

The basic gist is this: The relationship between GM and player is important (duh), and like any relationship, there are agreements, often unspoken, that make the relationship function. That's really what this thread is about.

So, without further ado...

Quote
Explain how a DM can be not right when they:

Quote
... reserve the right to make modified and unmodified skill, attribute or pure die checks against DC's, modified and unmodified skill, attribute or pure die rolls as I see fit.



What's already been said "GM's can be wrong," is true, specifically with regard to mechanical interpretations, interpersonal relations, and even sometimes with regard to world lore. And yet, what if you disagree with a GM, you think he/she is 'wrong,' but when you point out the problem to the GM, the GM disagrees with your sentiment and any arguments you make to prove your point? What happens is that the GM ruling stands, and the player gets stuck with that ruling, even though they disagree/don't understand. Hence your question, Script, "how a DM can be not right." In the situation with Alatriel and Gunther, it seems that both have reached an understanding. But, of course, this doesn't always happen, and this, I think, is what you're trying to point out, ScriptWrecked. Who determines when a player is 'wrong' versus when a GM is 'wrong'? Well, you either come up with some sort of impartial person who handles rulings in disputes, or you go with the rule of thumb that has been in place for as long there has been tabletop gaming: the GM has the final say. Does this mean the GM is always right? Nope. But it does mean that if he/she is wrong and won't admit it, you as a player get to live with it.

Or do you?

Actually, you don't. You, as a player, are not powerless. If you think a GM is messing with you, cheating you, or otherwise abusing you, and you can't convince anyone else it's happening, there is something you can do. You can stop playing in that GM's games/quests. If you don't like how one GM does things, go find a different GM. It's sad when it comes to that, but it's a powerful statement when a player quits your quest because he doesn't like you as a GM.

This is not a system designed around fairness. But it does have checks and balances. This is a system, a relationship, designed around an agreement between players and GMs, with the agreement being that the GM has final say in his game/quest/story, and that if a player doesn't like that say, he/she is free to go find a different GM or become a GM himself/herself. I've seen GMs lose all their players because they were too stubborn to work with the players, and what's a GM without players? I've also seen players who are so difficult to deal with that no GM will accept them into their games, and what's a player without a GM?

What I understand that you are hoping to do, Script, is to make as many mechanical interpretations as objective, and therefore consistent, as possible. Unfortunately, because collaborative storytelling is (what PnP style Roleplay really is) very much a subjective art, it is up to each group (GM and players) during each session to decide what rules/interpretations are acceptable, and what may be acceptable one session may not be acceptable another session, even within the same group. The only dynamic that remains consistent is the collaboration between members in the group, and that if any member of the group no longer finds collaboration feasible, they reserve the right to leave the group.

On another note, when you question a GM's call, expect a long discussion to ensue. Why? Because 99 times out of a 100, the GM made the call the way they did for a specific reason other than laziness or ignorance. If you don't like/are afraid of long discussions, then I suppose you'll be hesitant to bring it up. Personally, I love long discussions (as the other poor sods on the GM team know by now, heh), so I'll talk until the cows come home and never fear the debate that might ensue by questioning a GM's ruling.
 

Script Wrecked

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2012, 05:40:28 pm »
Quote from: miltonyorkcastle
If you think a GM is messing with you, cheating you, or otherwise abusing you...


Firstly, I would like to say that in all my time on Layonara (since 2007, some 350+ event sessions, and with probably 80 to 90 percent of XP from quests), I don't there has been any case where any of the DMs have "messed" with me, cheated me, or otherwise "abused" me. The standard of the DMing is exemplary, from the stories they come up with, whether simple and bashy, or complex and layered, to their willingness to handle absurdly large groups and to invest their time in developing your character (including the CAs who make the initial investment reviewing your character submission and ironing out the crinkles).

What I'm saying (or trying to), is that, as a player, the actions I take with my characters is based on my understanding of the mechanical rules used to facilate said actions (which may have severe consequences for my characters if they go wrong).

My judgement as to whether or not to make those consequencial actions is undermined if those rules are inconsistent.

I appreciate that I may not be aware of all the circumstances that may affect a particular roll, but I at least have an understanding of the mechanics.

Isn't that one of the fundementals of any game? That everyone is playing in accordance with the same set of rules that everyone is aware of?
 

miltonyorkcastle

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2012, 05:52:18 pm »
Quote
The standard of the DMing is expliary


Did you mean exemplary? If so, Thanks! :D
 

Shiokara

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2012, 06:01:49 pm »
Going to repost this since replies are open again:

Players have gotten sour at DMs since the dawn of Greyhawk. If the original grievance is settled, can we just move on and take things on a personal, case-by-case basis as they should be?

All this back and forth--yeesh.

Players: Don't roll play. If you do, then you are taking your dice and your life in your own hands.

DMs: Thank you for volunteering. Please try to read our minds next time.
_________________

Note: The above is meant to be read in a lighthearted way. Sarcasm is common here on the East coast, but it doesn't come across text so well.

If the call that has risen around this issue is an attempt to come up with some type of comprehensive system of basic actions and checks, then I'm wholly uninterested. Issues of questing should just be handled on a personal, case-by-case basis. It's not like they arise all that often, and quite frankly I'm not interested in having a list I can review to police DM dice checks.
 

davidhoff

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #33 on: August 14, 2012, 01:04:47 am »
*connects his safety rope and starts down the cliff ledge*

I think Script has a solid argument here.  We build charcters and invest in abilities, skill points, feats and equipment for specific reasons.  We are anticipating the day when we will be faced with "that" situation, and we want to be prepared; even more so, we want our characters to shine.  If we don't have a solid-ish idea of what is going to be expected of us, then it makes it difficult to build a character properly and it makes it disappointing when our efforts are not rewarded.

I agree a GM is King on his/her quest and that's the way it should be.  It's a game and a GM shouldn't have to worry about being so technical on what's required on a certain roll/situation.  They rightfully want flexibility and I think we all like that because it makes it more fun and diverse.

I think I just contradicted my self *looks over shoulder*.

*tries to rebound* I think the main point here is that the GM's should (as they do I think) take into consideration that we are building characters for just these certain situations and we are expecting our characters to perform at a certain level with our mechanical investments.  As long as the GM's understand that and can explain why they chose a cetain roll/set of rolls, then I think we should all be happy.  As players we have to cut the GM's some slack and just go with what's offered.  You can always shoot the GM a tell and ask them why they did the roll's that way if you want clarification.  It's possible you might raise an issue the GM didn't consider and they might do a re-roll, or they might just say you're still dead ;)
 

Shiokara

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #34 on: August 14, 2012, 01:59:33 am »
Quote from: davidhoff
You can always shoot the GM


You monster!

Seriously, though, I think you have some fair points even if I would disagree with them. We might build our characters with a certain group role or ability in mind, but I do not think it is fair to expect a certain outcome from a given situation.

If I were a DM and someone asked me to do a CDQ for their super bashy warrior, I'd probably try to design a scenario in which their hands are tied (metaphorically) or brute strength is not the best outcome. An invitation to court perhaps, or something involving a Lawful Evil villain of sorts. Anyway, that's waaay off topic.

You raised a great point, though, and I want to turn it back as a question: Does the community think it is fair for a player to have an expectation given a particular action?

My own response, in short, is that it happens all the time, but it is not necessarily fair.
 

davidhoff

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #35 on: August 14, 2012, 02:40:29 am »
I definitely think we should have expectations based on our builds, but not guaranteed success.  That's where the rolls come into play; to temper our expectations.

That leads me to a somewhat similar question I've pondered in the past and possibly a hijack.  If I'm on a quest and my 35 level wizard rolls a spellcraft check of 2+80=82 and the fighter next to me rolls and gets a 19+5=24, who can tell more about the "magical orb"?
 

gilshem ironstone

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #36 on: August 14, 2012, 07:08:52 am »
For the most part I dont think there is a problem with characters not reaping the rewards of their investment in skills, feats or RP.  In my six-ish years with Layo, I do not recall many (any?) other situations going this far; that is not a criticism, introspection of the community seems to be the current mood, so we should embrace that.  However isn't it up to the player to RP to highlight their strengths and weaknesses?  If you want to use your Listen skill of 150, you should do a lot of *Closes his eyes and listens for the mosquitoes heartbeat* or what have you.  

Dice rolls are used to add some randomness *coughs* to the situation, so if Tralek rolls a 2, you might not expect his sharpest answer.  Perhaps the fighter that rolled the 19 thinks Traleks answer is a little off, cant say why, but just knows it and earns Tralek another look.  But it is not a clear cut situation when you inject narrative in to the rolling, so your question is not reflective of all the issues at play.  This is why the GM has to reserve the right to adapt and change and not be pinned down to "this situation automatically calls for this roll".  It is too restrictive and could end up ruining a good story, and story is king in GMing.
 

Dorganath

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #37 on: August 14, 2012, 08:55:38 am »
Quote from: davidhoff
I think Script has a solid argument here.  We build charcters and invest in abilities, skill points, feats and equipment for specific reasons.  We are anticipating the day when we will be faced with "that" situation, and we want to be prepared; even more so, we want our characters to shine.  If we don't have a solid-ish idea of what is going to be expected of us, then it makes it difficult to build a character properly and it makes it disappointing when our efforts are not rewarded.

I think the notion that one should expect their builds to always generate positive results given the anticipated situation is a poor one.  Just saying.  Even the most prepared people in the world, RL or fantasy, will fail at some point.  They'll come up short.  

The best stories come from characters who cannot, for whatever reason, lean on their stats and skills and face a real challenge.

That's not to say GMs should wildly make up checks that make zero sense (i.e. "Checking for magic? OK, give me a Spot check."), but there should not be an expectation that one's build somehow equates to success. Of course, if skills/abilities + situation + dice converge in a synergistic way, then sure, that build should get a pretty significant "reward" as a result.  

No build or facet of a build should ever be an "I win" card.

Quote
*tries to rebound* I think the main point here is that the GM's should (as they do I think) take into consideration that we are building characters for just these certain situations and we are expecting our characters to perform at a certain level with our mechanical investments.  As long as the GM's understand that and can explain why they chose a cetain roll/set of rolls, then I think we should all be happy.  As players we have to cut the GM's some slack and just go with what's offered.  You can always shoot the GM a tell and ask them why they did the roll's that way if you want clarification.  It's possible you might raise an issue the GM didn't consider and they might do a re-roll, or they might just say you're still dead ;)

I know a lot of GMs do take that into account in some way or the other. Again, that doesn't mean your carefully-crafted builds will always have situations tailored to them for the best possible outcome.  On the flip, I've had GMs let me make checks with alternate skills than might normally be used, simply because it allowed some measure of success (which there should be) even though my character didn't have the exact right skill that is mechanically specified for the situation

Quote from: Shiokara
You monster!
The cake is a lie. *shifty*

Quote
If I were a DM and someone asked me to do a CDQ for their super bashy warrior, I'd probably try to design a scenario in which their hands are tied (metaphorically) or brute strength is not the best outcome. An invitation to court perhaps, or something involving a Lawful Evil villain of sorts. Anyway, that's waaay off topic.

Actually, that's exactly what I do more often than not, and I know lots of other GMs who work the same way.  The CDQ is always within a character's reach, but it absolutely won't rest on their primary stats, abilities and skills alone.  Success in a CDQ rarely lies on the character sheet, but failure often does.

Quote from: davidhoff
That leads me to a somewhat similar question I've pondered in the past and possibly a hijack.  If I'm on a quest and my 35 level wizard rolls a spellcraft check of 2+80=82 and the fighter next to me rolls and gets a 19+5=24, who can tell more about the "magical orb"?

Yeah, that's a good question, and one that a lot of players wonder, especially on a quest situation where there are lower and higher level characters mixed together.

The answer is situational, like everything else.  If a Fighter somehow had points in Spellcraft (odd, but not impossible) and rolled like that, he wouldn't necessarily be able to tell more about the "magical orb" (primarily given a relative lack of experience and knowledge), but he might be able to disagree with the Wizard who maybe just took a glancing look at the orb and made a few assumptions based on what little he saw. So for example:
[INDENT]Wizard: *looks at the orb* Hmm...images within...seems to be some sort of permanent scrying device.
Fighter: *squints* You sure? Almost looks like it's keeping something inside.
Wizard: *looks closer and looks slightly embarassed* Ah...yes. Indeed, the images are within, not a reflection of somewhere else.  Curious...

(all GM-driven, of course)
[/INDENT]So it could just as easily have been a 2nd-level Wizard making that 19+5 Spellcraft roll, and that's what players need to remember rather than assuming that modifiers will always win out. Going stat-for-stat, the Wizard with the +80 will eventually be able to determine a whole lot more than the Wizard with the +5, because the latter will reach the end of his personal experience and knowledge before the former will. However, the latter making a better roll may have greater initial insight into the matter than the former who makes a bad initial roll.

It gets back to that whole role-play vs. roll-play thing.  You should do the former and not the latter. Don't rest on your stats and skills, because they won't always be as helpful as you'd like. Similarly, don't be afraid to try just because the Epic-In-The-Room is trying the same thing. You never know!
 

Gunther

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #38 on: August 14, 2012, 11:48:00 am »
Maybe I'm being too literal minded when reading these posts and I can see the entertainment value in a pc stretching beyond their typical grasp on CDQs.  I'm just not sure I see the practicality of it.  

Lets take the example given above, the bashy fighter in a court setting.  Assuming that the bashy fighter reports to a lord of some sort, or guard sergeant or captain, that superior should know the limits and capabilities of the pc.  Sending him out on a scouting mission, possibly in charge of a squad of troops would be a reasonable mission.  A court ball, where the bashy fighter has to figure out which fork to eat his salad with is probably not.  I can see some possibilities if we were dealing with a french musketeer situation, wherein the elite soldier is expected to have some knowledge of etiquette and manners, but otherwise it borders on setting someone up for failure.

Thats assuming that the lord or sergeant or whatever is actually intent on the success of the pc.  It could make for an interesting story if they were intent on the opposite and were setting the pc up for failure in the first place.  Perhaps they see the pc as a possible threat to their ambitions, etc.

As for leaning on stats and builds, lets liken it to the Olympics.  A gymnast spends a huge amount of time preparing and training to get to that level of skill.  They can probably do a somersault at any time or place and not have any fear of failure.  The likelihood of failure is infinitesimally small (of course theres Feck), although it does happen.  Looking at Feck though, how many thousands of dives had he successfully completed?  How many competitions?  I dont actually know and am way too lazy to actually research it, but I imagine several.

Sure, failure is a possibility, however for somebody who has trained for the majority of their life, its pretty slight.  I and everyone else here trusts in the professionalism of the GMs, lets just keep in mind that the pcs are the experts in their field and failure is probably an extremely slight proposition.  Especially if they are playing to their strengths, which if they have survived for any length of time and have any sense, the pc should be trying to arrange things so that they are utilizing their strong points against the opponents weak(er) points.

I suppose my point is this; by the time a pc gets to 20th level, I think they would be considered an expert in their field.  Their chance of success at a mundane task should almost be a given.  Almost.  I would liken it to my stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson, in his prime.  Unless he trips on an untied shoelace, falls over and breaks his neck, I can reasonably expect a mangled ear.  Maybe both of them if I'm unfortunate.  

I debate even posting this for fear it will stir this up again, but lets take a look at Gunther barelling his way through another pc.  I bring this up solely because its already been discussed ad nauseum in this thread and everybody is probably familiar with it by now.  To put it in perspective, Gunther has sufficient strength to pick up and toss a 1979 VW Beetle across the room.  Strength is his forte.  If another pc stands in his way, intending to block him (even moreso if that pc is 15 levels below Gunther), unless Gunther trips and falls and breaks his neck, things are probably not going to go well for that other pc.  Disregarding the sheer physics of the situation, wearing full plate, weighing quite a bit in his own right, forward momentum, the other pc standing still, etc.  If we were to take a look at the possible combat scenario (ie the other pc attempts to trip Gunther), there probably isnt much that Gunther hasnt seen as far as combat goes.  Hand to hand combat would similarly go poorly, unless the other pc was a monk.

I certainly dont want to see campaigns bogged down with physics discussions.  I weep at the thought.  However, I also recall adventures where pcs of 20+ level were getting slaughtered by drachs.  It was way back in the beginning of the whole drach campaign and maybe it was just a miscalculation, but it was wholesale annihilation.  Practically, if the drachs had that kind of strength, a hundred of them would have obliterated entire kingdoms without breaking a sweat (assuming that your common foot soldier is somewhere between 1st - 5th level).  On the other hand, it wouldnt be much fun if it were a cakewalk either.

My post is simply a plea that we remember to keep things in context.  As much as you can in a world where there are spells and mind flayers and whatnot.
 

Dorganath

Re: stat abilities versus skills and saves
« Reply #39 on: August 14, 2012, 01:01:41 pm »
Quote from: Gunther
Sure, failure is a possibility, however for somebody who has trained for the majority of their life, its pretty slight.  I and everyone else here trusts in the professionalism of the GMs, lets just keep in mind that the pcs are the experts in their field and failure is probably an extremely slight proposition.  Especially if they are playing to their strengths, which if they have survived for any length of time and have any sense, the pc should be trying to arrange things so that they are utilizing their strong points against the opponents weak(er) points.

The "D" is CDQ is "Development".  A CDQ for a fighter doesn't develop anything if all it does is reinforce that he's strong and can hit stuff really, really hard.  Sure, maybe a fighter wants to become a champion (in the gladiatorial sense), which we could do as a CDQ, but maybe that championship is rigged or someone is cheating, so the secret goal is not necessarily to win the contest but to overcome the unfairness that is introduced by the unethical.

To use your Olympics example, yes, these people have trained for this specifically, but success is not guaranteed, and ultimately, the contest depends not only on themselves but on factors beyond their control.  Statistically speaking, there's a greater chance that they'll lose than win.

I'm pretty sure no GM here would run a CDQ that was impossible for the character or so far outside of the development of that character. Yet it is extremely common for a GM to set up a situation where the character has to stretch a little to truly succeed.

To use myself as an example, I had a CDQ for my main character, who is a Lucindite Sorcerer.  Naturally, the problem involved magic, and the attempted solution also involved magic, but it was the wrong solution, and my character was effectively (and temporarily) drained of his ability to use magic for a while.  Yet the problem still existed and he had to solve it or there would be big issues for him (and that section of the world).  The solution ultimately involved creative thinking and my character to direct others toward the proper solution.  The end result was: problem solved, CDQ passed....barely.  If all I had to do was show up, roll some dice that played to the strengths my character already had, there would have been no point.

So this is what we're talking about.  Not dressing fighters up as circus clowns and seeing how many flowers they can pick while walking on their hands...not running a CDQ for a ham-fisted half-giant barbarian that depends on his ability to play complex compositions on the violin... but rather getting the character to stretch a little (or a lot) and end up more developed as a result.