Do you like rolling?

[LostSoul]

I prefer rolling because that means no one at the table knows what is going to happen until the die is cast. However, if I'm playing and Take 10/20 is in play, I will take advantage of it. Especially if I'm trying to sneak past a group of NPCs and they all get checks to spot me.

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.

The tool I use for my 4E hack is as follows:

1. Identify the conflict.
1a. Don't make a skill check if there is no conflict. Conflict can be with the environment.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm with Herschel on this. I'm a follower of the "Say yes or roll dice" camp so, if there is in the course of play a situation where it is trivial enough within the context of the situation for a player to have his or her character 'take 10' and assuredly succeed, then why bother... just say the character succeeds.

Just to show where "Say yes or roll dice" comes from...

Drive play toward conflict
Every moment of play, roll dice or say yes.
If nothing’s at stake, say yes to the players, whatever they’re doing. Just plain go along with them. If they ask for information, give it to them. If they have their characters go somewhere, they’re there. If they want it, it’s theirs.
Sooner or later — sooner, because your town’s pregnant with crisis — they’ll have their characters do something that someone else won’t like. Bang! Something’s at stake. Launch the conflict and roll the dice.
Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes. Roll dice or say yes.​

 

[Ahnehnois]

As to the "say yes or roll dice" approach my players and I like to roll just to help the narrative, in a non-combative fashion. For example, they'll sometimes roll a Prof (Cook) just to see how good dinner was. They'll also roll a ton of knowledge and investigation type checks; with no real DC but just a a general feel that a high roll nets better info.

Agreed; rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice doesn't interest me. Now rolling dice for the sake of narration or tension ("Oh you rolled a 1 so it takes several minutes to push the sarcophagus lid off. And when it finally clangs to the floor.....there's a mummy inside!") is fine.

I guess I pretty much agree with this sentiment; rolling for story purposes.

 

[Woas]

Agreed; rolling dice for the sake of rolling dice doesn't interest me. Now rolling dice for the sake of narration or tension ("Oh you rolled a 1 so it takes several minutes to push the sarcophagus lid off. And when it finally clangs to the floor.....there's a mummy inside!") is fine.

To me, and maybe it's just from the lack of context taking this example for what it is, but what is being described here with the "rolling a 1 to open sarcophagus" doesn't seem like narration or tension, but just punishing the player for rolling a die or random encounter generating.

 

[Fifth Element]

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

I don't think it's that: it's that the character can keep trying until he gets his best effort. That's why it's important that there be no consequence for a failure.

So rather than the player rolling and rolling until he gets a 20, he takes 20.

 

[The Shaman]

Everyone knows that the heroes are supposed to win, so rolling attacks and saves is just a way of narrating how they win.

See, I always thought they're heroes because they won.

 

[Chrono22]

I often use time as a form of pressure/constraint on PC action- so there is often conflict of player choice- does the opportunity cost/benefit of taking ten outweigh the cost/benefit of rushing the action?
Seen in a vacuum, taking 10 or 20 is always going to be superior to simply rolling. But I haven't played in a vacuum since Star Wars d20

 

[Garthanos]

See, I always thought they're heroes because they won.

conversely the only true hero is dead in the service of others... oh wait is that martyrdom.

I guess we could eschew heroic luck from the game and play every one as minions?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm with Herschel on this. I'm a follower of the "Say yes or roll dice" camp so, if there is in the course of play a situation where it is trivial enough within the context of the situation for a player to have his or her character 'take 10' and assuredly succeed, then why bother... just say the character succeeds.

That is what Take 10 is, though.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think it's that: it's that the character can keep trying until he gets his best effort. That's why it's important that there be no consequence for a failure.

So rather than the player rolling and rolling until he gets a 20, he takes 20.

Within the context of the game world, in order for your best effort to always be quantifiable in that way, you have to be able to control all variables. I don't mean game mechanics variables here; I am talking about the "imagined space" that the game takes place in.

IMHO, one should never know how effective one's "best effort" will be. That is why I allowed a 1 in 3 possibility that taking the time to try to do one's best allows for a roll that exceeds 20.


RC