Help me nail down this 'take 10, take 20' nonsense

[Sebastian Francis]

Do you also not allow strong characters played by weak players to pick up heavy objects? Or players who have a hard time speaking up playing characters with high cha and social skills from useing any abilities?

I dont see much of a difference.

'I'm sorry, but since you cant lift 200lbs then obviously your character cannot either'

'I'm sorry, but since you do not have an int of 32 like your character then he cannot solve riddles'

I've started another thread dealing with this issue. Feel free to check it out!

My short answer to your question is that social skills and physical skills are not analogous. Social skills are what RPGs involve doing, sitting around a table, talking, planning, figuring things out. Physical skills are what RPGs involve *simulating*, jumping, running, fighting dragons, etc.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Then explain the Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff skills.

 

[knifespeaks]

I think your problem is with metagaming, not the rules. Yes, it is true that we do sometimes miss the obvious, but usually not when we go to exhustive measures not to. When I am looking for something I have misplaced, I tend to randomly root around in the most likely areas first, and, if that fails, begin on one side of the room and move or touch everything until success is had. Sometimes that does not work and I chalk that up to not mutliclassing into rogue.
If, however, I had no reason to suspect that something is there to be found, I would not look very hard for it, and would, therefore, likely overlook a small detail. If your players are relying on the take 20 rule, always doing so in order to not miss anything, then they are metagaming. "There might be something here to find, so I will look for it until I do!" The rule is not the problem, the player is. Changing the rule in this case is not the answer, modifiing the behavior of the player is. If your players insist on taking 20 all the time, have some big nasty come around to "help" them hurry it up. Maybe apply a -5 circumstance penalty to thier spot/listen checks to see it coming because they are so engrossed in searching.

I once believed as you did that the take 20 on search was a bad thing. Repeated discussions on this fine messageboard showed me that I was wrong. Follow the Smurf... his rules-fu is strong.

Nay friend, I don't allow take 20 on searches at all

If you want to 'take 20', you are free to roll the die 20 times, 50 times, 100 times. Doesn't bother me. And in that time, you may find either something or nothing - and if you find nothing, you won't know whether that is because there is nothing to find, or you failed. That's all I am saying.

Take 20 falls down because it gives a definite answer, vis-a-vis:

player: "I'm gonna take 20 on searching this room"
DM: "You don't find anything"

The problem here is that the response is DEFINITE - that is, there was NOTHING TO FIND AND NOW THE PLAYER KNOWS THIS.

THAT'S the problem.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Nay friend, I don't allow take 20 on searches at all

If you want to 'take 20', you are free to roll the die 20 times, 50 times, 100 times. Doesn't bother me. And in that time, you may find either something or nothing - and if you find nothing, you won't know whether that is because there is nothing to find, or you failed. That's all I am saying.

Take 20 falls down because it gives a definite answer, vis-a-vis:

player: "I'm gonna take 20 on searching this room"
DM: "You don't find anything"

The problem here is that the response is DEFINITE - that is, there was NOTHING TO FIND AND NOW THE PLAYER KNOWS THIS.

THAT'S the problem.

Its not definite at all. Its VERY possible that if a player searches while taking 20 that they don't find anything. Some search DCs can be VERY high. Taking 20 is no promise of success at all.

...side note. I find this kind of funny because I have NEVER seen a PC take the time to take 20. They've thought about it, but just don't want to risk taking so long(20 rounds can be a while, sometimes) to find nothing.

 

[Lamoni]

Nay friend, I don't allow take 20 on searches at all

If you want to 'take 20', you are free to roll the die 20 times, 50 times, 100 times. Doesn't bother me. And in that time, you may find either something or nothing - and if you find nothing, you won't know whether that is because there is nothing to find, or you failed. That's all I am saying.

Take 20 falls down because it gives a definite answer, vis-a-vis:

player: "I'm gonna take 20 on searching this room"
DM: "You don't find anything"

The problem here is that the response is DEFINITE - that is, there was NOTHING TO FIND AND NOW THE PLAYER KNOWS THIS.

THAT'S the problem.

I am sorry, but I am still confused. If you allow someone to re-roll the die, the player still can see what is on his die roll. If he repeats and gets a 20 on his 5th roll, he won't continue searching because he knows he has done the best he can. Allowing someone to 'take a 20' just eliminates the player re-rolling until a 20 comes up. It saves a lot of time, and it makes sense to allow it.

Your logic about there being a distinction between knowing they didn't find anything and knowing that there is nothing to find doesn't hold up. If I have a search skill of +6 and the difficulty of finding the magic needle in that pile of hay over there was set at 35, the player can still only get a 26. A 20 DOES NOT GUARANTEE SUCCESS with skills. Only with attacks and saving throws. A rogue with a +12 to search taking a 10 is the same as the fighter with a +2 taking a 20... except that the fighter takes 20 times as long. When the fighter takes a 20 with no result, that definately doesn't tell the fighter there is nothing to find... only that there is nothing that he can find. Someone else might come along and find it with no trouble. Even if you do find something on a 20, it doesn't mean that there wasn't any more to be found if you were only more skilled at searching.

 

[knifespeaks]

Gasp!

You allow players to roll the die for searches?

Ah, then there's the confusion, from my end - I never allow players to see the results of those rolls.

It's a DM-only roll for my mind - a player cannot know the result of the dice, merely the result of the search.

 

[Sebastian Francis]

I never allow players to see the results of those rolls.
It's a DM-only roll for my mind - a player cannot know the result of the dice, merely the result of the search.

And now the "Should DMs make certain skill checks in secret or not?" threadjack begins.

[POP]

That was the sound of another can o'worms opening up...

 

[Lamoni]

knifespeaks...

That is fine with me if you want to roll the dice in secret. You still didn't address the big gaping hole in your logic... that getting a 20 DOES NOT mean that there is nothing to be found. Anyway, the rules as written are still clear that taking a 20 IS allowed with searching. I just wanted to understand why anyone would want to houserule this like you have done.

 

[knifespeaks]

Getting a 20 will sometimes mean there is nothing to be found and sometimes it won't - the 'big gaping hole' isn't present.

And spare me the 'RAW' argument - I always thought the books contained guidelines? It seems to me that they are 'guidelines' when people agree with your house rule, but are 'rules' when they don't.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Getting a 20 will sometimes mean there is nothing to be found and sometimes it won't - the 'big gaping hole' isn't present.

Um...put any other number in place of that 20 and it says the exact same thing. Does that not strike you as a 'big gaping hole'?