Anyone else hope the rules for taking 10 & 20 see some revision?

[Felon]

What if every single game, the group laughed its ass off several times a session because of the enjoyable people there?

Well, in all fairness, KD, all that laughter is a huge time sink. If they want to fritter away time guffawing foolishly, maybe they should be watching Comedy Central instead of gaming.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yeah, and all that time eating and drinking is a time waster also. No food, drink or bathroom breaks allowed.

And we are looking into banning breathing for respiration, though breathing as a function of speaking (for role-play purposes only) is fine.

 

[Felon]

I may be wrong but it seems I detect a players/DM dichotomy about take 10 and take 20.

The players seems to find these extremely useful since it really empowers them removing randomness and of course allowing them to maximize the skill. However, as a DM I wonder if these players have considered the impact of the automatic fail or success that it creates for the DM.

Its not that the DM is out to get them and likes to roll a ton of useless rolls, its rather that some DM prefers that there remains some surprises/randomness in the game. With the way take10/take 20 works, it means that I basicaly have to decide in advance if my players will or not find the trap or if they will or not be able to sneak in the cavern or if they will be able or not to climb the mountain etc. This in facts forces the DM into the worst kind of railroading in a sense. The game in much fairer and much more interesting for the DM (and the players) if he knows there is a POSSIBILITY of success but not if there will be or not success even before the adventure begings.

Sure. Taking 10 and 20 takes chance out of the equation. It's a step towards diceless gaming.. There are really only three major types of d20 checks: attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks. I'm curious to know we actualy have any support for taking 10 on attacks and saves. I suspect most folks see the value of having a random element with those two.

Honestly, many players I've gamed with see taking 10 and 20 as good ways to hedge their bets. I'm just going to sit here in this alcove for a couple of minutes, so let me take 20 on my Hide check. Sure, that means somebody whose Spot check modifier is equal to my Hide modifier is boned. They'll need to muster up a +10 bonus somehow in order to get fair odds of success. But forget the numbers; I've come up with a justification for taking 20 on the check, so I should be able to do it. I've seen it happen enough times to wish the rules didn't exist.

 

[Felon]

Yeah, and all that time eating and drinking is a time waster also. No food, drink or bathroom breaks allowed.

In all serious, I think the day of the thirtysomething adult diaper is coming, and not just for gamers. People spend so much time at work and driving these days, it's just a matter of getting the ball rolling.

 

[Quasqueton]

I'm DM most of the time (51-80%), and I think Take 10/20 is a brilliant rule.

I am honestlly surprised and stunned at the number of people who don't understand the rule, and/or don't like the rule. I mean, really surprised.

I see nothing complicated or difficult about the rule, and I see no problem with the rule.

Quasqueton

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm DM most of the time (51-80%), and I think Take 10/20 is a brilliant rule.

I am honestlly surprised and stunned at the number of people who don't understand the rule, and/or don't like the rule. I mean, really surprised.

I am honestly surprised at the number of people who support the rule who claim that the people against the rule don't understand it and/or don't like it.

It's far from brilliant. The concept behind it is great (i.e. I applaud the goal the rules were trying to achieve). The implementation sucks beyond belief (i.e. I don't dislike the way it is handled, it's just terrible all by itself: like or dislike really has nothing to do with it and it's pretty clear I understand the rules).

It's amazing that it made it into any game system as per the following quote:

Its not that the DM is out to get them and likes to roll a ton of useless rolls, its rather that some DM prefers that there remains some surprises/randomness in the game. With the way take10/take 20 works, it means that I basicaly have to decide in advance if my players will or not find the trap or if they will or not be able to sneak in the cavern or if they will be able or not to climb the mountain etc. This in facts forces the DM into the worst kind of railroading in a sense. The game in much fairer and much more interesting for the DM (and the players) if he knows there is a POSSIBILITY of success but not if there will be or not success even before the adventure begings.

Therefore I think the goal is to find a new mechanic that allows to retain these advantages that players (and DM) likes, while still keeping an element of uncertainty, and of course while removing the extreme distortion of probability mentionned by the OP.

Well said.

The DM setting the chance of success for elements of his game is critical to the game. The DM being handcuffed into setting that chance at one of two values: 0% or 100% is so far from brilliant that it makes me want to puke that people think it is brilliant.


The concept behind Take 10 and Take 20 is very nice. I applaud the goal.

But, the designers have to find a much better way to get around the problems of that extremely ill conceived implementation of that concept. It's like buying a beautiful house and having it fall apart. It was very beautiful, but the fact that it doesn't stand up on its own is definitely a sign of inferior design.

The people who think the rule is good are only looking at the superficial beauty of it and not its foundations.

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

I'm DM most of the time (51-80%), and I think Take 10/20 is a brilliant rule.

I am honestlly surprised and stunned at the number of people who don't understand the rule, and/or don't like the rule. I mean, really surprised.

I see nothing complicated or difficult about the rule, and I see no problem with the rule.

Quasqueton

Wow. I'm with this guy, and some of you take this WAY too seriously.

One may notice that parser-based puzzle games died pretty much all at once, and completely, when the technology improved enough for a more effective interface. A human DM has absolutely no excuse for "You didn't check HERE, though!" outside of an old-school faceless PC hackfest, because nobody cares what happens to Fightor XVIII.

 

[Quasqueton]

I am honestly surprised at the number of people who support the rule who claim that the people against the rule don't understand it and/or don't like it.

In my gaming experience, most people who express that they think the rule doesn't work simply just don't understand the rule. Some folks in this thread have demonstrated that they don't understand the rule (like Take 10 taking longer to perform).

And, um, if you are against the rule, doesn't that mean you don't like it? I can't figure out how you could like a rule you think doesn't work. Especially when you're so adamantly against it.

The DM being handcuffed into setting that chance at one of two values: 0% or 100% is so far from brilliant that it makes me want to puke that people think it is brilliant.

I'm sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense to me. I'm not using hyperbole, and I'm not trying to antagonize anyone. I simply cannot understand this complaint.

some DM prefers that there remains some surprises/randomness in the game.

Hyperbole? It's useless to discuss something with someone who uses hyperbole for an argument. It makes me just ignore the rest of a post. If this is not hyperbole, please explain how there isn't "some surprises/randomness" in the game with Take 10/20.


I have never, ever, not once, seen Take 10 or Take 20 in any way hurt the game or hinder my DMing. In fact, it has always helped the game and helped my DMing. I've never had a problem with Take 10 or Take 20, and I consider it one of the best rules in d20. It's simple and useful, and does exactly what it's supposed to do every time it has been used.

Quasqueton

 

[Thundershield]

The number of die rolls will be reduced when Hide and Move Silently are rolled into "Stealth."

To counter that, however, we'll see considerably more monsters in 4E encounters, meaning we'll still have a huge load of die rolls and comparing numbers.

Anyway, the Take10 and Take20 rules are simply time-savers and should be used as such. Take20 is intended to spare game sessions the overly boring and dull 10 minutes of:

"I roll to find the hidden compartment." "You fail."
"I try again." "You fail."
"I try again." "You fail."
"I try again." "You fail."
"I try again." "You fail."
"I try again." "You fail."
"I try again." "You fail."
...

If you don't want players to search for hard-to-find stashes, don't include them! The game isn't about rolling dice - it's about the players having fun, and sometimes "finding something carefully hidden in a sinister niche" is fun, even if you simply did it with a Take20.

As for Take10, just use it for routine tasks. Climbing that cliff on the way to the wyvern's lair is a good example. It's utterly non-consequential for the over-all story, but gives the players a feel their characters CAN climb stuff (even if it was with a little help from a +2 circumstance bonus for "taking their time"), and instantly puts the game into a rough mountainside scenery.

Please, don't hang up your game over little things like having the players groan over having to roll 60 times just to find that secret door, but instead have them be excited about what the evil mastermind might hide behind such a secret door.

Of course, there's the whole dilemma with traps. However, traps are merely a tool for driving up the tension. You use traps to create the feel of a kobold warren, or to make the area of a battle (where Take20 isn't possible) more dangerous, or simply to illustrate a dangerous tomb, or something similar.

I say, don't fuss about it and use Take10 or Take20 to deal with the "fuss". Don't use Take10 or Take20 for the big and really important stuff. And keep your players from doing it by including simple elements that prevent them from doing so, such as with the battle on top of the traps (would be a perfect way of making a fight against some kobolds more dangerous, since the players know there must be traps SOMEWHERE, but don't have the time to find out where, and thus have to take little risks all the time - great tactical challenge).

 

[Thundershield]

Sure. Taking 10 and 20 takes chance out of the equation. It's a step towards diceless gaming.. There are really only three major types of d20 checks: attack rolls, saving throws, and skill checks. I'm curious to know we actualy have any support for taking 10 on attacks and saves. I suspect most folks see the value of having a random element with those two.

Honestly, many players I've gamed with see taking 10 and 20 as good ways to hedge their bets. I'm just going to sit here in this alcove for a couple of minutes, so let me take 20 on my Hide check. Sure, that means somebody whose Spot check modifier is equal to my Hide modifier is boned. They'll need to muster up a +10 bonus somehow in order to get fair odds of success. But forget the numbers; I've come up with a justification for taking 20 on the check, so I should be able to do it. I've seen it happen enough times to wish the rules didn't exist.

Right. Realized I hadn't taken opposed rolls into consideration in my previous post...

Well, first off there are a few factors for foiling it. The DM can have monsters drop in on the player trying to hide, for instance. It takes him 2 minutes to Take20 on Hide, and until those 2 minutes have passed he's not hidden.

Another way of handling it is the classic "DM rolls" method. Since PCs can't know how well they've hidden themselves, they shouldn't know the result either. That way a player might try to Hide, and if they roll poorly, they'll simply try to Hide again instead of keeping the poor roll. By using DM rolls you don't know how well you hid and thus can't Take20 since you can't tell the 20 apart from the 1 until someone tries to Spot you, and by then it'll be too late to attempt another roll.

Either way, Take20 should not be used in this case. There's the risk of being spotted, which isn't just a dangerous, but also adds drama and excitement. You don't want Take20 to take over here, so you don't use it. Goes for both players and DMs, which is what makes it fair.

Take10 would work, of course.

In the end, it's really your call if something is good for Take20 or Take10. They're both meant to speed up play or cut out trivialities, so use them for that. Don't use them for "unfair advantages" or to "ensure success in dramatic scenes".