The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => Ask A Gamemaster => Topic started by: Gunther on August 04, 2012, 11:00:30 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://nwn.wikia.com/wiki/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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman).
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.
-
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 (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/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
-
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.
-
*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, 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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
The GM is not always right...
Explain how a DM can be not right when they:
... 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.
...but neither are players who think they know better.
The trouble seems to be getting the acknowledgment when they are correct.
-
This has all been explained already.
As is evident here (http://forums.layonara.com/ask-gamemaster/285957-stat-abilities-versus-skills-saves.html#post1743008) and here (http://forums.layonara.com/ask-gamemaster/285957-stat-abilities-versus-skills-saves.html#post1743009), 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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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...
Explain how a DM can be not right when they:
... 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.
-
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?
-
The standard of the DMing is expliary
Did you mean exemplary? If so, Thanks! :D
-
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.
-
*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 ;)
-
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.
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
*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
You monster!
The cake is a lie. *shifty*
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.
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
Sorry, I edited my post to get at what I was stating a bit more clearly.
-
I'd like to add some thoughts on this as well, from the GM perspective. One of the issues that we've got going on here in the perspective of fairness rests solely on development. And in some cases having a +80 to something won't win out over the little guy who only has a +25. Lemme 'splain...
Player X submits Wizard in 2004. We'll call him Wizard X. Wizard X gets in with a band of chums and levels up to 20 on or around the preferred year time frame, generally good fun character to be around etc etc. All is generally well.
Player Y come in and submits Wizard Y in 2010. Player Y is a very casual player and even in 2012 only is 15th level. Wizard Y however, has invested his time in some CDQs along the way. Wizard Y has a forte as established by that CDQ or series of CDQs.
Quest time on Saturday. X and Y are both present. Situation comes along that falls squarely into Y's forte. Both wizards roll. X = 14+80, Y = 14+24 (yeah, don't analyze the accuracy of those numbers, the level and spread of final result is what's important here). GM tells X some details about the situation. GM tells same details to Y, but also some little niggly details that may or may not be important to the situation. X is a little ticked off that they didn't get that extra information because they feel their stats should have given them access to all the information.
The focus of the server is development/RP. It's already been stated above that the players should focus on role play rather than roll play and for a lot of new players this has been something of an issue. Even for long time players this is something of a consistent issue. When it comes down to it guys, development is going to win over stats numbers. And frankly, when we gve out information to players, it can be anything. It can be a red herring, it can be fun flavor, it can be an extra tidbit as a bone toss to acknowledge a player's effort, or it could be vitally important to the quest. Part of the point of questing is the whole puzzle process (with various levels of severity depending on your GM).
Do we acknowledge that level 20+ characters are potentially specialized experts of their field? Yes, absolutely. Do we acknowledge that players can get to 'expert' before level 20? You betcha. Does all development into a forte have to come via CDQ? No, it can come on regular quest too, but you get out what you put in to this. That means the player who dives in and gets involved and PMs before and/or after the quest, tries to do the extra work isn't bird dogging and trying to show off or take over or any other negative thing, they're doing what we what them to do. And yeah, some characters have access that others don't because of their development and some don't. Sometimes we need you to lean on one character or another but that doesn't mean characters won't all be afforded a moment to shine.
Roping this back around to the OP question and general angst over using stats vs skills, and allowing GMs to retain the flexibility to call it on the spot per their overview of things. I'm going to use the situation in question, and I'm gonna make some stuff up to illustrate my point because I'm not privy to the exact details.
Player X, big, big strong character tries to shove aside much less strong and lower level character to get on his way to something. This happens somewhat on surprise and on the surface maybe seems cut and dry. Str v str and really no chance of big, big strong character losing out unless you have a GM that operates on the 1s and 20s principle (which I do btw). It should not be a foregone conclusion that bigbigstrong just gets away with what he's trying because he's inconceivably stronger than the other lower level character. Lower level character may have something that gives him initiative (ie insanely high listen adds, and has a chance to hear it coming, or premonition spell up and GM allows for the player to act etc). Maybe lower level player wants to get out of the way rather than take on what is nothing short of a charging bull. Maybe lower level character wants to stop bigbigstrong but isn't going to be so silly as to out strength him. Maybe he has a spell ready, maybe he wants to stick his foot out and trip the guy (at the risk of breaking his own leg in the process), maybe he wants to put a 'kick me' sign on the guy's back as he passes because he's a Shadonite. It's really never, ever cut and dry. The more people you add into the mix the more layered every single situation becomes. Incidentally this is why quests with higher turn outs will always go over. It's not about GM's miscalculating content, it's about GMs not anticipating the amount of player element that's going to affect things. Anyway, total side tangent.
So, when it comes down to it on these things it's about trust and good chemistry between players and GM(s). There is an underlying current on this server that GMs are 'out to get us/you'. There is, similarly, an undercurrent of players jumping at every perceived inconsistency as proof of that or the other elephant ghost, favoritism. (Or as I call it, the F word.) We (the GM team) totally don't have a problem with being asked about a result or a process. We don't have a problem with being wrong or having made a poor snap decision. We do have a problem with not being trusted and we do have a problem with having our freedom to be creative as the situation calls for put on ice.
We generally tend to follow most of the same paths into how we handle things, and that's in part an unconscious lining up of our methods in the time we work together. You'll find that GMs in a similar time zone, when they work together a long time (or even a shorter time if there's a new GM who's got little GMing experience) tend to have the same processes. In that, I think there's a natural flow of consistency between GMs already. If there is ever a situation that needs to be understood or sorted out, it absolutely should come to light in some way and be discussed between player and GM and if necessary there should be a long discussion about it so we can make the best, fairest decision possible for the community. As a team. As a whole community team. Just bring your facts to the table and we'll get it sorted out with as much fairness as possible.
Regards,
~row
-
Player X, big, big strong character tries to shove aside much less strong and lower level character to get on his way to something. This happens somewhat on surprise and on the surface maybe seems cut and dry. Str v str and really no chance of big, big strong character losing out unless you have a GM that operates on the 1s and 20s principle (which I do btw). It should not be a foregone conclusion that bigbigstrong just gets away with what he's trying because he's inconceivably stronger than the other lower level character. Lower level character may have something that gives him initiative (ie insanely high listen adds, and has a chance to hear it coming, or premonition spell up and GM allows for the player to act etc). Maybe lower level player wants to get out of the way rather than take on what is nothing short of a charging bull. Maybe lower level character wants to stop bigbigstrong but isn't going to be so silly as to out strength him. Maybe he has a spell ready, maybe he wants to stick his foot out and trip the guy (at the risk of breaking his own leg in the process), maybe he wants to put a 'kick me' sign on the guy's back as he passes because he's a Shadonite. It's really never, ever cut and dry. The more people you add into the mix the more layered every single situation becomes. Incidentally this is why quests with higher turn outs will always go over. It's not about GM's miscalculating content, it's about GMs not anticipating the amount of player element that's going to affect things. Anyway, total side tangent.
And this is where my beef is.
There are several contradicting statements in the above example which illustrate my point, the point being discussed in this thread, and not the half dozen interjected remarks saying this thread is about this and about that, none of which have done anything to address the point and only served to muddy the waters of this apparently very contentious issue. Keep to the point, people.
There is a consistent model that can be applied to the above situation which requires no adjudication by anyone and thus noone getting bent out of shape over.
Either the big guy has Surprise, or he doesn't. Full stop. Period. Boolean result.
If he has Surprise, then it is cut and dried. It is a straight Strength versus Strength, and unless the DM operates the 1s and 20s principle (which personally I think is worthwhile), then is all over, red rover.
If the big guy does not have Surprise, then we check for Initiative. If the little guys wins Initiative, then he gets to go first. Otherwise the big guy goes first.
Cut and dried.
By the way, Listen checks affect Surprise, not Initiative.
I hope this clears things up.
-
I'm well aware how the system works. But I still don't get your problem.
This thread was started under the assumption that we NORMALLY roll stat vs skill. We don't. Lemme repeat. We don't normally make players roll stat vs skill (or the other way around). The GM made a bum call trying to save everyone some time and frustration. That has been stated about ten times over. The GM would not have had to make that snap decision if the player had stated his action and waited for what he should do. Double issue, both sides cleared up. They are, so far as I can tell, fine with the outcome.
What has come up however is that sometimes there are situations that don't have a cut and dried answer and we do use a modified skill vs stat (or the other way around) roll to handle it. So the initial situation was NOT the norm. It is regretted in spades. It will not likely be happening again in the future, mostly because we've kicked it into the ground, pulverized it and chased it to the opposite side of the world and back (US, Australia...). But we aren't going to say that we will never, ever have a situation where we have to use a stat and a skill as opposing rolls. We will say that we will never, ever give a PC an impossible roll in that situation but if it's highly unlikely (usually because the PC is trying to do something really crazy) we'll state it in some manner. I don't know how much more clearly this could possibly be said.
So what is the continued beef, Script? Why are we going back over this repeatedly when we've already stated the situation was atypical, it was done for a social reason (stress and frustration issues) and given the chance to go back and do it again, it likely would have been done differently by both sides. So again, where is the issue? Why is the question of stat vs skill NOT resolved for you? Where am I missing your point? If it is simply what you've stated in your previous post I see it as completley and totally addressed a number of posts ago by other people.
~row
-
My posting was not intended to revive this issue in particular, however since its being discussed....
From my perspective, Gunther charged forward intending to kill an npc. The lower level character apparently saw Gunther charging forward and discerned Gunther's intent. Seeing said intent, the lower level pc threw himself in front of Gunther.
Gunther continued forward, the lower level pc stood there. No other actions were taken, no kicks, no trips, no spells, no attempts to get out of the way, no Shadon signs, nothing. At least not that I can recall, unless there was info being passed via tells that I wasnt privy to.
I dont disagree with the 1's and 20's principle, as per my recent post, there is the chance of tripping on a shoelace, falling, and breaking your neck. I think it would be substantially less than 1 in 20, but thats the system we have.
I didnt actually have an assumption that we normally rolled stat versus skill, it was more intended to make sure (for my own peace of mind if nothing else) that we werent doing that normally. It was something that I had seen in the past with the inevitable failure of the stat roller. When I say past, I mean years ago, years and years. Perhaps the GMs back then had these comparison charts which were mentioned earlier, but given the speed with which I recall decisions being made, I doubt it. Of course appearance can be deceiving and maybe the chart was right there at hand, or the GM was so practiced in its usage that they barely needed to glance at said chart. I dont know.
In either case, I'd really like to not discuss this any further. You are all, of course, welcome to continue to do so, but I believe I will abstain from even looking at this thread in the future.
-
It seems like this has run its course and the original poster seems to have his answer. It also seems like somewhere there's a breakdown, which I blame primarily on the text medium.
There is really little point in further dissection of what happened with this incident. It's pretty much been analyzed and acknowledged as a two-party mistake.
A mistake...and one not really worth 40+ posts.
It's been resolved. Any further extrapolation is a pointless exercise. I really am not trying to shut people up, but it's already been said multiple times that the incident is not ideal. They messed up. So what?
Belaboring the incorrectness of this particular incident serves no further purpose except to raise emotions. My suggestion: let it go.
-
Discontinuing as I'm getting too many "I don't understand what you're saying" each time I state (and restate) my point. Seemingly, people are forgetting what they posted when I respond to it. When my posts are long, apparently they aren't being digested. When they're too short, I'm being snarky and nasty (as though that would be my intent).
Next time, I'll visit and we can discuss it over tea and biscuits.
I didn't have that Mandarin font on again did I?
-
If I had the power...... Lock Lock the thread....