Do you like rolling?

[Wicht]

"Taking '10' or '20'" is a crime against nature. 4E has it "right" if/when you auto succeed if your modifier is higher than the DC. Otherwise 'taking' a number is a cop-out for a DC system that's out-of-whack.

If something makes sense to automatically succeed, then no 'taking' of anything should be required, it just happens. Having to 'take' something is a ridiculous excess of rules in that case.

Urm, taking 10 is there to represent the fact that there are certain things you can succeed in automatically. Its the assumed norm for any attempt. Generally speaking, if the DC is low enough for the players to succeed by taking 10 and there is no rush, the DM should not be calling for rolls but should instead just assume the PC succeeds.

Taking 20 is a completely different animal. It assumes a concentrated, sustained effort that includes a few failures. You can't take 20 on any check where there is a penalty for failing (such as climbing) without suffering the failure.


I'm not sure how this is a crime against nature or an excess of rules. They seem fairly straightforward in both concept and execution, requiring only a couple of sentences of explanation.

Edit: I like rolling dice. But taking 10 is still a useful rule for speeding up game play.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wicht, I have to agree with your post. Take 10 and Take 20 are tools to help the DM determine if a die roll is needed; nothing more.

Take 20 carries with it two problems:

(1) it assumes that the PCs can control variables on their "best effort" (i.e., their best effort is always the same result, regardless), and

(2) it conditions the GM to include an an/off switch. If something is at the Take 20, the GM can assume it can be done. There is no chance of failure.

My solution assumes that sometimes favourable events mean that the PC who takes her time can do better than she normally could; other times she does less well. 17 + skill mod could still be used as an on/off switch, but at least I have attempted to guide the prospective GM away from that.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm a roller by preference.

I've taken 10 or 20 perhaps 10 times total, combined. Not memorable experiences. Die rolls, OTOH, can sometimes result in immortal memories due to spectacular successes or failures...or even being so middle of the road that you don't know whether you succeeded or not...

and the plot seemingly unfolds as written.

 

[Herschel]

Urm, taking 10 is there to represent the fact that there are certain things you can succeed in automatically. Its the assumed norm for any attempt. Generally speaking, if the DC is low enough for the players to succeed by taking 10 and there is no rush, the DM should not be calling for rolls but should instead just assume the PC succeeds.

This is actually my point. No "asking" if they're taking 10, don't even insinuate it or have them say it. It's pointless. Just "assume" they take 10, if that makes you feel better, and say it's a success.

 

[Ahnehnois]

A common experiment my cognitive psychology professor liked to use as an example was to give a person a choice between getting $10 or flipping a coin (heads $20, tails nothing).

Personally, I'll always take the chance. The same applies to D&D. Take 10 is a useful rule, but I want to roll.

 

[Wicht]

Wicht, I have to agree with your post. Take 10 and Take 20 are tools to help the DM determine if a die roll is needed; nothing more.

Take 20 carries with it two problems:

(1) it assumes that the PCs can control variables on their "best effort" (i.e., their best effort is always the same result, regardless), and

(2) it conditions the GM to include an an/off switch. If something is at the Take 20, the GM can assume it can be done. There is no chance of failure.

My solution assumes that sometimes favourable events mean that the PC who takes her time can do better than she normally could; other times she does less well. 17 + skill mod could still be used as an on/off switch, but at least I have attempted to guide the prospective GM away from that.


RC

My games don't see Take 20 used that often as its seldom practical. It takes a long, long time and you are guaranteed a failure to begin with. By the rules you can't use it for crafting or for challenging obstacles in the middle of a dungeon. Rope Use - ie tying knots - is probably the only place as a DM I have generally assumed those tying did their very best.

I also use take 10 as my default for guards on extended duty. It is impractical to roll every round so when PCs try stealth I just add the guards Perception to 10 and use that as the DC.

 

[Wicht]

This is actually my point. No "asking" if they're taking 10, don't even insinuate it or have them say it. It's pointless. Just "assume" they take 10, if that makes you feel better, and say it's a success.

Well, I wouldn't do that exactly, especially not in the middle of dungeon exploration - it would make the players feel like I'm running their PCs for them. What I will do is say, "do you just want to take 10?" and they will either say, "yes," or "No, I think I will roll." Often they just take 10, sometimes they want the thrill of overwhelming success and so roll. Having said that, if its not a crucial moment of suspense, I will say, "Its not that difficult for people of your caliber and you easily scale to the first branch of the tree wher you eat your lunch."

 

[The Shaman]

Urm, taking 10 is there to represent the fact that there are certain things you can succeed in automatically. Its the assumed norm for any attempt. Generally speaking, if the DC is low enough for the players to succeed by taking 10 and there is no rush, the DM should not be calling for rolls but should instead just assume the PC succeeds.

One of the rules I like in Flashing Blades is the effect of achieving the rank of Master and Master Superior in a skill. The rule says that the referee only rolls a skill check if the action is particularly difficult or dangerous, with a bonus of +3 or +6 respectively, otherwise the character succeeds.

I love what dice bring to the game. I also like when characters reach a level of competence where success is a reasonable assumption in all but the most hazardous or challenging circumstances.

 

[gamerprinter]

I've never taken 10 or 20

In our games, we only have one player a rogue/shadow dancer (a skill monkey) that ever takes 10, though I don't think she's ever taken 20. Not any of the other players, myself included has ever done this.

Regarding speeding up the game, well, "why?"

Most of our games take up 6 hours on a weekly schedule (not every week, but 90% of weeks throughout the year.) If a part of a dungeon takes longer due to circumstance, it takes longer, we've played 8 or 9 hour games now and again. All this talk of speeding up the game - I see no need for that.

Then again, none of the DMs (we switch that role every month or so) utilizes situations that require endless rolling to accomplish a task - the situations don't really occur. And if they had, nobody noticed, we just keep rolling the dice.

I'm sure even when taking 10 is an obvious situation, most of us never do, that's what dice are for. Taking 10 is cop out, but we still allow our rogue to that - if she wants.

GP

 

[Jhaelen]

A common experiment my cognitive psychology professor liked to use as an example was to give a person a choice between getting $10 or flipping a coin (heads $20, tails nothing).

Personally, I'll always take the chance. The same applies to D&D. Take 10 is a useful rule, but I want to roll.

Interesting. I'd always take the $10. What does this tell about me?