I have never liked the taking 10 rule because I feel that all things should have a chance of failure. Sometimes PC's would get to the point that they maxed out certain skills and then would just take 10 vs something that was meant to be a big deal.
Getting rid of "Taking 10"
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Taking a 10 works IMO if:
A: you're not under pressure. If you're under pressure, roll it.
B: it's something simple that you can take your time to figure out.
Otherwise, roll it, because the DC will usually be too high to hit with a 10 or you'll be under pressure to solve the problem before it kills you.
A: you're not under pressure. If you're under pressure, roll it.
B: it's something simple that you can take your time to figure out.
Otherwise, roll it, because the DC will usually be too high to hit with a 10 or you'll be under pressure to solve the problem before it kills you.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
Taking 10 or taking 20 was a ridiculous mechanic.
Get rid of it. Get back to the dice!
--SD
Get rid of it. Get back to the dice!
--SD
UngeheuerLich
Legend
taking ten and taking 20 are really awesome. Without it I would hate 3rd edition.
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
Some things are supposed to be a risk, and they have a chance of failure. But some things are not. What should and shouldn't require a roll is rooted in the effort to bring consistency to a setting.
For example, lifting a gate or heavy object should have no or a limited random element. If you can lift a certain amount of weight, that number doesn't change dramatically.
Same with most professional tasks. If you know how to do something well, then you're going to perform well when you attempt it. Picking a lock? Tying a rope? Deciphering a script? These don't have much of a random element to them.
The d20 system only has one random element for most tasks: the d20. It's a linear form of randomness with a huge range. This is fine in combat and other tasks where using a skill represents taking advantage of an opportunity, but it's terrible for tasks where performance should be more stable. So, for those tasks, something like taking 10 simply works better.
There's a psychology behind the idea of making the players roll, which I fully admit to falling into sometimes. It's the idea that you should never give something to the players. That they need to earn it. That without a risk of failure, success isn't satisfying.
All of these things are true, but the skill system is not the place for this aspect of design. Skills, checks, and DC's are not primarily about providing challenges, they're about describing how characters interact with their environment. The challenges, the risks, and the rewards all belong to design of the environment.
Overcoming those challenges is about the choices you make, not the die results. The risk in breaking down a door doesn't come from the die roll, but from not knowing how strong the door is or what's on the other side. Randomness is used when an aspect of the environment can't be known—when there are no predictable outcomes. They're for the things you might be able to do and the opportunities or threats that might happen.
For example, lifting a gate or heavy object should have no or a limited random element. If you can lift a certain amount of weight, that number doesn't change dramatically.
Same with most professional tasks. If you know how to do something well, then you're going to perform well when you attempt it. Picking a lock? Tying a rope? Deciphering a script? These don't have much of a random element to them.
The d20 system only has one random element for most tasks: the d20. It's a linear form of randomness with a huge range. This is fine in combat and other tasks where using a skill represents taking advantage of an opportunity, but it's terrible for tasks where performance should be more stable. So, for those tasks, something like taking 10 simply works better.
There's a psychology behind the idea of making the players roll, which I fully admit to falling into sometimes. It's the idea that you should never give something to the players. That they need to earn it. That without a risk of failure, success isn't satisfying.
All of these things are true, but the skill system is not the place for this aspect of design. Skills, checks, and DC's are not primarily about providing challenges, they're about describing how characters interact with their environment. The challenges, the risks, and the rewards all belong to design of the environment.
Overcoming those challenges is about the choices you make, not the die results. The risk in breaking down a door doesn't come from the die roll, but from not knowing how strong the door is or what's on the other side. Randomness is used when an aspect of the environment can't be known—when there are no predictable outcomes. They're for the things you might be able to do and the opportunities or threats that might happen.
steeldragons
Steeliest of the dragons
And there it is, ladies and gentlemen. The two sides of the coin, revealed.
Continue discussion at your own peril. lol.
--SD
The point of take 10 is that the character is doing something simple and routine with no stress or distractions to mess them up. You can't miss seeing the huge door unless someone distracts or stressing yo.
They seem to be removing take 10 anyway.
It's Take Ability Score now.
Ahnehnois
First Post
In principle, I don't want to roll dice unless an outcome is in doubt and matters substantially. Whether they call it 'take 10' or not, I think they have articulated that many tasks will be assumed, handwavable, or otherwise accomplished without rolls, which is a good thing. Frankly, I think take 10 and take 20 were well implemented and I wouldn't seek to change them.
Similar Threads
D&D General
Playing to "Win" - The DM's Dilemma
