Do you like rolling?

[Nagol]

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

Unlike Take 20, Take 10 has no opportunity cost. The time required is identical.

If a 10+ is known to succeed and the circumstances are calm enough to allow it, taking a 10 is superior. Rolling is superior when (a) Take 10 isn't an allowed option, (b) the required target on the d20 is 11+, or (c) the required number is unknown to the player and the player wishes to maximise the rolled value.

 

[Woas]

That is what Take 10 is, though.

I agree with that as a general thing.

The only difference I'd point out an only for the sake of discussion is that for a player to Take 10/20 there had to have been a dice roll the GM called for in the first place.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree with that as a general thing.

The only difference I'd point out an only for the sake of discussion is that for a player to Take 10/20 there had to have been a dice roll the GM called for in the first place.

"There is a rope bridge across the chasm."

"I have a Balance of +6. Do I think I can make it if I just go slowly and carefully?"

"It looks that way."

"Okay; I Take 10."

Where's the die roll?

 

[The Shaman]

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

Luck need not be heroic, and quite a few games do make the adventurers as vulnerable as the monsters, so I'm not clear what your point is here.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

I'm assuming that the mummy was a planned encounter all along. The die roll doesn't effect anything, it's just there to put something between "I open the sarcophagus" and "A mummy leaps out!" and to inspire a brief narration of opening it.

Not a necessary roll, but fine by me.

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

I'd say that they're heroes for risking their lives for the benefit of others; those who win remain living heroes.

There are of course gray areas and exceptions to the "heroes are supposed to win" idea, but the majority of D&D battles involve the heroes winning. So mostly, those attacks rolls are rolled to narrate how badly the heroes get beat up before winning.

 

[Chrono22]

Unlike Take 20, Take 10 has no opportunity cost. The time required is identical.

If a 10+ is known to succeed and the circumstances are calm enough to allow it, taking a 10 is superior. Rolling is superior when (a) Take 10 isn't an allowed option, (b) the required target on the d20 is 11+, or (c) the required number is unknown to the player and the player wishes to maximise the rolled value.

So you basically just repeated what I said. In a vacuum- when the player is under no threat and can take his time- taking ten is going to be superior. For some reason I figured taking ten takes more time than simply rolling (I thought it required full-round actions)... I guess it was an unconscious houserule of mine. In any case, consider this:

You are in a 10x10 foot stone room with your four other party members. A steel-reinforced door at the back of the room is being broken down by two-dozen minotaur. You need to find a means to escape- and lacking spells or magical equipment, you are left with the vertical shaft in the ceiling, from which a rope hangs.
You might have enough time to take ten in this situation, but you might not.

In my games, I use time as a tool to make the players engage in the environment. In my games, taking 10 or 20 often has an opportunity cost and an associated risk. If it didn't, why would I bother making them roll?

 

[Nagol]

So you basically just repeated what I said. In a vacuum- when the player is under no threat and can take his time- taking ten is going to be superior. For some reason I figured taking ten takes more time than simply rolling (I thought it required full-round actions)... I guess it was an unconscious houserule of mine. In any case, consider this:

You are in a 10x10 foot stone room with your four other party members. A steel-reinforced door at the back of the room is being broken down by two-dozen minotaur. You need to find a means to escape- and lacking spells or magical equipment, you are left with the vertical shaft in the ceiling, from which a rope hangs.
You might have enough time to take ten in this situation, but you might not.

In my games, I use time as a tool to make the players engage in the environment. In my games, taking 10 or 20 often has an opportunity cost and an associated risk. If it didn't, why would I bother making them roll?

If you have time to climb the rope by rolling, you have time to Take 10 -- assuming a 10 results in a success. There is no difference.

The only time there would be a difference is if there was a houserule where the distance climbed depended on the die roll. In that circumstance, Take 10 may still be better. The consistency of the result will tend to trump the extra 0.5 in the expected value of the roll.

 

[Chrono22]

If you have time to climb the rope by rolling, you have time to Take 10 -- assuming a 10 results in a success. There is no difference.

Except that taking ten requires concentration and the player needs to "be taking his time". I interpret that in this way- a move action skill becomes a full round action. The time taken to perform other skills is likewise extended.

The only time there would be a difference is if there was a houserule where the distance climbed depended on the die roll. In that circumstance, Take 10 may still be better. The consistency of the result will tend to trump the extra 0.5 in the expected value of the roll.

Except that in my game, since taking ten takes slightly longer, and the climbers can only go as fast as the person climbing on top- then taking ten might set your allies up to die, since they won't be able to put distance between themselves and the minos before they break down the door.
Context, context, context.

 

[Nagol]

Except that taking ten requires concentration and the player needs to "be taking his time". I interpret that in this way- a move action skill becomes a full round action. The time taken to perform other skills is likewise extended.

Except that in my game, since taking ten takes slightly longer, and the climbers can only go as fast as the person climbing on top- then taking ten might set your allies up to die, since they won't be able to put distance between themselves and the minos before they break down the door.
Context, context, context.

OK since you've assigned a houserule that attaches an opportunity cost to the option then yes, there is an opportunity cost to consider.

 

[Chrono22]

OK since you've assigned a houserule that attaches an opportunity cost to the option then yes, there is an opportunity cost to consider.

Yes. That's what I've been saying. I run my games a certain way, that taking ten does have a purpose aside from being a cop-out for players.