The World of Layonara  Forums

Author Topic: A Request for Consistency  (Read 757 times)

LynnJuniper

A Request for Consistency
« on: May 13, 2007, 08:55:58 pm »
First of all I want to state primarily that I mean no harm by this post. I am simply stating my opinion, which you are free to agree or disagree with at your digression. Just please, do not chastise me for having the opinion that I do, because it is unlikely to change in that manor. If you disagree by all means discuss.

            The reason for this post, finally being posted comes up with another recent one on Shadowdancers and what they are and are not allowed to accomplish in accordance with the way they are done in standard D&D. The second thing I want to state is I have little ground knowledge of D&D Besides what I learned while studying third sources to better my rp and understanding of Layonara.

 For just over a year I’ve been rping here and most of that time I’d like to think of myself as very active in quests spanning most if not all of the GM team. During this time I’ve seen many things done by players, and attempted many things my self. Most of these things needed GM support to happen. They were not hard coded into the NWN mechanics and therefore were made to happen by GM intervention at best and purely rped at 'worse’.

            During this time, I’ve seen spells and abilities that classes should , by D&D rules possess done, and others turned down by GMs. For example, Dream speaking, Gaes/Quest, etc. are different in Layonara then they are in D&D.

 A Recent post by Dorg stated that D&D Rules are not technically Layonara rules. Just because it’s a class standard or a spell standard in D&D does not mean it is in Layonara.

 That’s fine.

 What is less fine is when a character can do something on one quest only to find that the exact same thing is impossible or not to be done in Layonara by the decision of another GM on another quest.

 So , humbly, my request is a bit of consistency, and perhaps some ground rules. The playerbase doesn’t, as far as I know, realize its limits. Some of them believe their limits are what NWN gives them and that’s not nessecearily true. Conversely some believe D&D 3.5 rules spells abilities etc are their limits, and that’s not always correct either.

 So I ask for perhaps some ground rules. “This this and this” can be done “this this and this” can’t, that would remain static for quests from one GM to the next.

 I realize what I’m asking would take the GM team, or atleast Leanthar, EdtheKet, etc.  to sit down and that’s extra time that lots of people do not possess. I also realize this just sets Even more rules and regulations to a game that is ruled and regulated enough. I just think it would be beneficial to the player base to know what they can and can not do, so that they are 1) Confident in their actions on quests and off 2) Do not feel slighted when their characters are told they cannot do something on one quest that worked perfectly fine on another and 3) Know the limits of their characters power.

 Thank you for listening, and considering. I hope this did not come off as insulting as it was not my intention.

 Feel free to discuss.

With Respect,
Jessica
 

Acacea

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #1 on: May 13, 2007, 09:39:19 pm »
There is nothing wrong with this. A list at its most basic should have been made a long time ago I think, even by us players with input from DMs. It's been said that 'house rules' are common for DMs, but as I argued then, we are not playing at separate tables here, even when we are on separate quests. I don't mind having different rolling standards, but vastly different abilities can be frustrating. Often if someone gains proficiency with a more RP oriented ability through quest actions, they will probably stick to the DM they got it with...not because they want more goodies, but because there is a very good chance that it will only be that DM that will honor it, and because they like some creative freedom within reason.

On the flip side of the coin, you have DMs that go too far out of their way to try and allow people creative freedom and may nicely allow things that should not have been possible, either for well-defined lore reasons (I would say the dreams bit falls under this area), things not working in a similar fashion to D&D, or because a character is using said abilities inappropriately, whether intentionally or not. This may also be someone who comes from a D&D background allowing all the PHB spells because "that's how it works!"

I don't think it require an extensive spell list. But many people roleplay abilities that they shouldn't have, and others are afraid to roleplay ones that they should have, because all we have is a dinky spell list. So we either need to say "NWN SPELLS ONLY!" and make that the final word, or make a very basic guideline that will allow people to have some freedom without going over the top.

That combined with good use of character profiles seems like it lays out the whole framework for experimenting within boundaries, and ensuring that character abilities and limitations of those abilities are known.



With all of that said, it's not going to happen, so I encourage all players to try and have some common sense about Layo's magic and not go too far out of the bounds of what exists or pull things from the PHB, as 90% of it is either going to be completely inappropriate here or would be heavily altered. Instead, look towards what you are trying to accomplish and hit it from a character angle rather than a "well this is a level 3 spell in D&D so I should be able to do it" angle. Likewise I encourage DMs to make more use of character profiling to know what they are capable of, and to have some familiarity with Layonara specific lore and magic involved with it. You would be surprised what information already exists before people start to make up new stuff to fill blanks.  

Most things that are not in the NWN spell list require a lot of preparation ritual style and good rolls to do for most GMs, anyway. In the end, several DMs are open to most things if the effort is put into it, and if you're used to that style and don't get along with someone's else's just don't go on those quests. ;) I fear that because we know that no one capable and authorized has the time to make such a list, if many people demand an end to the 'gray area' then none of us will be able to roleplay anything outside of the default spell list, because that's the only way the gray can realistically go. And that would suck, because boy is that list empty when it comes down to a lifetime of magic.
 

LynnJuniper

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #2 on: May 13, 2007, 09:42:01 pm »
Thanks Acacea, for saying what I was going for much more efficiantly.
Though I am curious...

" With all of that said, it's not going to happen,"...Why?
 

Laldiien

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #3 on: May 13, 2007, 09:46:53 pm »
I quote from Page 6 of the Dungeon Masters Guide, Core Rulebook II  v3.5, under the heading of Adjudicating.

"When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel (more on that later).

To carry out this responsibility, you need to know the rules."

The GM's are people.  They interpret the rules in different ways.  Some are hammers, some are soft touches.  Some are hammers wrapped in velvet.  It would also depend on the quest.  Speaking for myself, if the Layo rules are murky in an area, and I want to use that murkiness to move the quest forward, I would hope the GM would allow it.  

The only Rules that are inviolate are the ones that Leanthar says "Thou shalt not..."  Every thing else has wiggle room.
 

LynnJuniper

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2007, 09:50:03 pm »
""When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game."

Problem is, quests aren't a separate game, and Layonara is all one game. Therefore, it is my belief that if the world is one consistent place, then there should be rules to reflect that, if not...well then we're not really playing a single game are we? :)

Different interpretations of rules doesn't mean there shouldn't, in my opinion, be a single set of guidelines.
 

Dorganath

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2007, 09:59:56 pm »
I understand, respect and, to an extent, agree with your comments.  Consistency is something we do try to achieve in as many ways as possible.  For as much as I would like to establish a set of ground rules, the real issue here is that there are far too many possibilities to have a definitive list of what can and can't be done.  I can attempt a very broad list, but chances are it is a metric that is already being used in 95% of the cases or more.

I want to stress that for the most part, the following applies mainly to me and how I'd do things. Given the frequency of my quests, that's not terribly helpful I know.  They are not any sort of official line (unless otherwise stated), and any overlap between my own opinion and the official line of Layonara is little more than good judgement on my part. ;)


On with the show....

In general: NWN and Layonara in its current incarnation relies upon 3rd Edition D&D rules as a base, though this is not the final word on the matter in all cases.  Version 3.5 of the rules do not apply, and should not currently be considered or used as the basis for a request.

For class and racial abilities:  For these, I typically side with what is permitted and stated in NWN rules unless we have removed or modified it to better suit Layonara.  So to borrow an example from a recent Shadowdancer thread, things like Shadow Jump are not implemented and thus would not be permitted.  Besideds being quite powerful in a PW, that one in particular was granted to one particular Shadowdancer as an ECDQ reward. Out of respect for the hard work that the character put in, both before and during the quest, I wouldn't even think about letting someone else attempt that.

For spells and magic...
There are a ton of spells that were not included in NWN and its expansions.  Many of these were simply because they don't work well (or at all) in a single-player, non-GMed computer game.  Let's be honest, that's what NWN is at its core, and GM interaction is a feature added in as a bonus. For all those spells which are not included, many can be potentially RPed in game with a GM if it can be justified and it works within the framework and spirit of Layonara.  Many times a GM will require a ritual to perform them, and so it would take a bit of work to accomplish, but the rewards may then be worth it as well.

I know that's rather vague, but even in PnP games, I've had a GM tell me "Normally, that would work, but not this time."  The reason was something related to the quest, and not necessarily for me to know right away.  

This brings me to my next point...it is my personal opinion that as long as it does not stray away from the spirit and framework of Layonara, a GM should have a certain amount of discretion in such matters, whether it has been done previously or not.  However, having said that, I do believe that if such a request is refused that the GM at some point communicate the reasoning to the player or players as to why.

Finally, what are a character's limits?  Well, that depends.  The primary limiters are class, race and level.  Given sufficient levels in a given class (or high enough skill levels) there are fewer and fewer limits.  A character should never be able to take actions that are beyond their ability and experience.

Yes, that's all very vague, but it's a broad topic and one that doesn't lend itself well to a set of more specific guidelines, in my opinion.
 

Laldiien

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2007, 10:01:45 pm »
**EDIT** Post directed at Jessica

Sit down, make up the rules.  I'd rather have my GM's thinking up new and inventive ways to kill my character than writing a rulebook.

I know Layo well enough to know what I can "get away with".  IE, casting X spell or using X skill won't fly as it's not in the spirit of the server.

To be fair though, I really don't see it as an overwhelming issue.  To be perfectly blunt, I've seen maybe a handfull of posts dealing with NWN vs. DnD 3.5 and "why can't I do X".  Not worth the time it would take to fix so a limited few could know the boundaries.  

Not sure?  Ask.  Always worked in the past.
 

LynnJuniper

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2007, 10:09:15 pm »
Quote from: Laldiien
Sit down, make up the rules.

Laldiien that is the second time you've countered a request in the fashion of "if you want something done do it yourself" in a 'since you can't...sit down and shut up' type manor And I feel it counter productive to the whole request.


---

EDIT: Rest of post deleted. Will Return with new post once I read Dorg's
 

LynnJuniper

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #8 on: May 13, 2007, 10:14:49 pm »
Thanks Dorg , the post , while a bit vague as you said, at least shed light on the situation from a view point I did not see, very helpful in all.

Though, as you said

"I can attempt a very broad list, but chances are it is a metric that is already being used in 95% of the cases or more."

It may be used by the GMs, but does the playerbase have any idea of it? Do the less veteran GMs have any idea of it?

I think this 'very broad list' would be useful.

I think the most useful thing would be a short compilation of what can't , under any circumstances in Laynoara (Regardless of D&D or other PWs) be done.

So far we have:

1) Shadow walking (besides Lala, for the ECDQ award)
2) Talking to someone in a Dream
3) Gaes/Quest as a whole.

I think something like this would be useful so that
1) People don't do it on one quest with one GM (who may not even know that these things cannot be done)
and
2) Don't even try.

Thanks!
 

Acacea

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #9 on: May 13, 2007, 10:26:25 pm »
See, and already I don't know that leaving a message or something is forbidden under any circumstances... I'm pretty sure they can't go dream walking but I don't know where the limit is on it. *Grins.*
 

Dorganath

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #10 on: May 13, 2007, 10:30:39 pm »
Heh...well, I -might- support a player-initiated Quest/Geas if the situation justified it, if both parties agreed in an OOC sense and the player was able to conceive of and/or carry out a suitably intricate ritual to perform the spell.  

As to whether or not such guidelines are known to the general public?  Probably not, being as such guidelines are vague anyway and they tend to spark endless debate and "what if".  

My best and only advice is to ask, and to work out with the relevant GM whether something is possible.  Often, if it's a situation that comes up at the end of one quest session, it's helpful to discuss the possibility with the GM in the interim so that things are somewhat worked out by the next session and you can concentrate on actually performing whatever it may be rather than debating and negotiating during the quest.  That's not always possible, I know.  But again, it gets back to asking. You'll never know if you don't ask.  You'll never know if you don't try.

The "don't ever try" category....  This list is very short in my opinion.  There are a few things that have been stamped with the "this is how it is" stamp and are not open for negotiation...though some have tried.

The first one that comes to mind is Gate, specifically the alternate ability in PnP rules for someone to open this planar gate and use it to plane walk.  This feature is categorically not permitted in Layonara.  I could also probably list things like Wish/Limited Wish, Teleport Without Error and a few other grossly powerful spells that are available in PnP rules but not permitted here.  

Once more, this applies to me, but I'm a firm believer in allowing characters to act according to their strengths and talents.  Their abilities, feats and skills need to support it, but for most things, give me a good justification/description and we'll see.

Lastly, the GM team does keep a list of character profiles as appropriate for  characteristics that apply over and above the norm for a given character.  We try to keep these in mind, but we do not always remember.
 

LynnJuniper

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #11 on: May 13, 2007, 10:34:22 pm »
Thanks Dorg that makes a lot of sense. And I do agree in the long run with the asking thing.

Its just when you ask one GM and they say yes, and another Gm in like circumstances says no you get kind of confused and wonder "What are the extents of my character's abilities"

I guess there's no way around this though so I'd just like to say thanks for discussing this with me and thanks to the community for taking the time to read and consider. I value your opinions and replies so long as they're productive.
 

Interia_Discordius

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2007, 10:36:50 pm »
So, if you want to do it, just ask and make sure you can?
 

miltonyorkcastle

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #13 on: May 13, 2007, 10:59:14 pm »
As always, Dorg hit the nail on the head. The issue is extremely broad, and we must rely on GM discretion to keep things moving.

Also, I might suggest that each GM quest is a separate game unto itself, with Layonara as the background and NWN as the implementation. As such, so long as "it can be justified and it works within the framework and spirit of Layonara" I feel the GM's should be free to adjucate rulings to fit their own "games."

I actually just came across an example for this the other day. It has to do with death and negative HP. Player's X, Y, and Z get blasted by a trap. LEt's say it's a fire trap. They get cooked and die. X and Y are at, say, -20 HP, while Z is at -120 HP. The kicker is, there are no clerics in the party. How does the GM handle this?

Some GM's say, "Well, I hope your party members will carry your bodies out. And as for you, player Z, they're not carrying your body out, they're carrying your ashes out, because at -120 HP, there's nothing left of you."

Then there are other GM's who might say, "You got fried. However, the burns aren't internal. You mostly died from the shock and pain. Your friends, with some CPR, maybe a regeneration spell from the druid, some healing potions, and good bandaging with aloe might just revive you and allow you to follow your companions, albeit in some pain for a while until the regeneration takes full effect. Yeah, so you have -120 HP, player Z, dead is dead; negative HP doesn't mean a whole lot after -11."

There's an obvious inconsistency here. But in either case, is one of the GM's wrong or just making a bad call? I'd have to say no. They're in charge, because it's their game, and in both cases the answers "can be justified and (they work) within the framework and spirit of Layonara."

I would suggest that if you want to always know the boundaries of your character's power, don't go on GM quests, as, in my opinion, good GM quests challenge your power boundaries. I would also suggest that, though you may want to, it won't help you, so you probably shouldn't go into a GM quest thinking that what has worked in the past will work now, especially if it's a different GM. I'm sorry if you feel put down because what you thought would and ostensibly should work didn't, but again I might suggest you use that as an opportunity not to moap and complain about the unfairness, but to be creative and find new answers.

To you, personally, Jessica: You're one of the more creative, inventive, and curious players to grace Layo. You are a part of the Layo team, and the reasons for your lament are valid. I just want to remind you (because you already know this) that Layo GM's are not out to just screw with what your characters can and can't do. They're about creating an environment for you as a player to discover the fun hidden inside. Just as they try not to get bogged down in adjucating rules, I think that we as players should avoid trying to fit every GM into a single mold. But hey, it's certainly true that when you have a perfectly logical idea that's worked in the past get shot down, you tend to get a little frustrated. Just, let that frustration be in your character, and less in you, so as to maintain your level of creativity and fun even when things don't look so hot for your character.

**looks up** Man, do I ramble... and man do I type slow... six or seven more posts hit before I finished writing this.
 

LynnJuniper

Re: A Request for Consistency
« Reply #14 on: May 13, 2007, 11:11:21 pm »
A simple thanks doesn't cover it milty, so Thank you :)

As always I agree with much of what you say and appreciate the way you said it. But I'll address what you've addressed personally to me.

You're right, I know the GMs aren't trying to mess with our characters and I know that GM quests challenge boundaries. I agree that its better to roll with it than mope and call it unfair.

--

Another thing is that GMs are usually busy dealing with 10+ people on quests and I didn't want to waste their time anymore asking "Can I do this that an the other thing" Questions if there was an all purpose answer for it.

I think the way you state "Gm quests are separate games if there are seperate GMs" is interesting. I'm not sure I 100% Agree with it, such as when , as Acacea mentioned, a character was given some benefit on one quest that perhaps only that GM would honor.

Then again, that's when what Dorg said about character profiles comes into play.

So all in all, I agree with you now, and understand the opposite side of the 'argument'/request and have to say it makes a lot of sense as to why the request may not be as comprehensive as some would like it to be, and why it doesn't necessarily need to be.. :) Thanks


---

PS:

"Just, let that frustration be in your character, and less in you" ~ Ill take that bit of advice with me and add it to the rest I've gotten recently. It all really helps. Thanks
 

Joyrock

  • Jr. Member
  • **
    • Posts: 87
      • View Profile
    Re: A Request for Consistency
    « Reply #15 on: May 13, 2007, 11:19:02 pm »
    my feel on this is it just hard to do what you ask pure'n simple. Siting and talking does little for this because you can't really prepare for what a player asks.

    as a DM your trusted by the players to make a call there and on the spot, "can I do this yes or no" DM's can't keep checking with the admins on these because then players just remove the middle man and goto the admin everytime, making a need for DM's less important.

    what you seek in this is a group of like minded DM's very hard to near impossible to get. Every DM face's this challenge. "what is ok for me to say yes to, and what is not?"

    often the admin says what ever you think best your a DM now. This tends to breed two kinds of DM's ones that always goto the admin, and ones that can always make calls on there own, you also have the middle ground where the whole DM team votes and takes a very long time to get back to you. I have persoanlly seen this kill servers.

    I know this does little to answer your question but I hope it gives you a different view on it, I am new I can't really comment on much just things I have seen in my long time of playing NWN. hope it helps in some way, I have seen alot of amazing things done by the players and DM's perhaps they will surpise me with more grand feats that seem to make this place so great.:D
     

    Acacea

    Re: A Request for Consistency
    « Reply #16 on: May 13, 2007, 11:26:20 pm »
    I still agree that if someone likes a particular style and method of doing things that they should just stick with the same DM. And that asking to eliminate the vagueness is not a good idea, because like many other 'common sense' issues, when steps are taken to address it, the result will not be one we would have chosen. I do not agree that we are playing different games, though.

    Being lenient now and again or just having some fun and being silly, or using different dice aren't really the kinds of things I'm talking about. Why would we want to hash out all the millions of possibilities that could occur and make DMs memorize a new rule book when they could be running quests? One of the many reasons I never applied to be a DM is I hate paperwork and jumping through hoops. I would not envy them another rulebook before jumping in.

    I'm cool with everyone doing things different ways, but the major things should have some agreed points. Likewise knowing major points of lore and why things shouldn't happen should be something expected. If a DM doesn't know anything about the world, then he should learn before overwriting existing pieces or unwittingly being played into the "but mommy said" game. If you want to play many different games and use Layo for a setting, then release a PHB and make some modules for it. This is a persistent world and some things, in my opinion, should stay persistent...and consistent. That's all. ;)
     

    miltonyorkcastle

    Re: A Request for Consistency
    « Reply #17 on: May 13, 2007, 11:40:27 pm »
    I can't argue too much with that, Smiles. Nor would I want to. I pretty much agree on all points except that I still do view each instance of a quest as a different "game."

    Either way, it's obviously important that GM's know the lore of the world really well.
     

    Dorganath

    Re: A Request for Consistency
    « Reply #18 on: May 13, 2007, 11:41:23 pm »
    Good points, Acacea. And for what it's worth, the next Handbook will be much more akin to a Campaign Setting handbook than a player's handbook.  If Layonara became an official d20-esque campaign setting for the core D&D rule set, chances are really good that most of the PnP rules would be in effect, rather than the sometimes artificial ones that NWN enforces by necessity.  Even so, someone running a PnP campaign in the Layonara setting would invariably bake some of their own house rules.  Can't be helped...it's just going to happen.

    One last note before I swear completely off this thread for the night...

    When the next handbooks are released (yes, plural...it's too much to fit into one), one thing we have really worked for is a degree of consistency in terms of world lore.  That's something we can, and have, make a definitive call on and say, "This is what happened" or "This is what's known about this person/place/artifact/creature".  Though comparing history and mechanics are really quite different, the point is that consistency is a good goal to have, though different things lend themselves to consistency better than others.
     

    Hellblazer

    Re: A Request for Consistency
    « Reply #19 on: May 14, 2007, 01:31:59 am »
    I totally agree with you Lynn, I had a similar experience my self where on a quest my cleric, in an impossibility of sleeping, could not prepare a raise and when I tried to make the rp heal check to find a strand of life I was told that at -35 hp there would be no way for no one to revive someone, where on the other hand on a other quest I have seen a - hp almost 3 times higher be revived the same way.

    Quote from: miltonyorkcastle

    I actually just came across an example for this the other day. It has to do with death and negative HP. Player's X, Y, and Z get blasted by a trap. LEt's say it's a fire trap. They get cooked and die. X and Y are at, say, -20 HP, while Z is at -120 HP. The kicker is, there are no clerics in the party. How does the GM handle this?

    Some GM's say, "Well, I hope your party members will carry your bodies out. And as for you, player Z, they're not carrying your body out, they're carrying your ashes out, because at -120 HP, there's nothing left of you."

    Then there are other GM's who might say, "You got fried. However, the burns aren't internal. You mostly died from the shock and pain. Your friends, with some CPR, maybe a regeneration spell from the druid, some healing potions, and good bandaging with aloe might just revive you and allow you to follow your companions, albeit in some pain for a while until the regeneration takes full effect. Yeah, so you have -120 HP, player Z, dead is dead; negative HP doesn't mean a whole lot after -11."

    There's an obvious inconsistency here. But in either case, is one of the GM's wrong or just making a bad call? I'd have to say no. They're in charge, because it's their game, and in both cases the answers "can be justified and (they work) within the framework and spirit of Layonara."

    I also agree with this as to a Gm could say you must carry him and not use the RP heal check for life strand even if it was possible to revive him, but that should not mean that a ground rule for how much -hp is impossible to revive from without a cleric raise, be set.

    I would how ever say that there is a difference between a -11 and a -120. -11 is you body mostly still intact dead, -120 is an arm over there the head no were to be found, the blood feeding the daises .. well I'm sure you get my point.

    just little things like that that should be addressed to make it more constant and less confusing for the players, and surely for the Gm's too