Getting rid of "Taking 10"

[Dausuul]

Yeah, I just don't even allow "taking a 20", no matter how much time or space or security the person trying has. I can tolerate taking 10's given good circumstances, but taking 20's is just pushing it too far in my book. But hey that's just IMO.

Really? I see taking 20 as a blindingly obvious rule, much more so than taking 10. Taking 20 just means that, in the situation where the player says "I'm going to try over and over and over until I roll a 20," you cut out the formalities. The player will eventually roll a 20, so it's pointless to make her physically do it.

The alternative to taking 20 is to say your first roll is what you got, you never do better. However, it seems weird that a quick once-over of a room is just as likely to succeed as a minute, painstaking examination taking twenty times as long.

 

[Mercule]

The alternative to taking 20 is to say your first roll is what you got, you never do better. However, it seems weird that a quick once-over of a room is just as likely to succeed as a minute, painstaking examination taking twenty times as long.

In 1E, there were a number of activities that essentially said, "If you fail, you can't try again until you level up." For this reason, alone, taking a 20 is a "new" idea.

Don't get me wrong.... I didn't care for the "try next level" silliness of 1E. Just pointing out that it existed.

 

[Agamon]

In 1E, there were a number of activities that essentially said, "If you fail, you can't try again until you level up." For this reason, alone, taking a 20 is a "new" idea.

True, but d20 let you try again if you failed and were able to try again. Choosing to not use the Take 20 rule in that system is like insisting on writing out your long division with a calculator sitting beside you.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Do you drive a car every day? Driving is a hazardous task requiring skill and attention; countless things can go wrong. Hundreds of thousands of people annually are killed by auto accidents.

In a game in which the PCs must drive, should a Drive skill roll be required every time they get behind the wheel? Maybe every hour of travel? With a 1 being an automatic failure?

Well, if you drive to work and back 5 days per week, and roll for each trip, you can expect to crash about twice per month. And so can every other car out there, and that's assuming they are all good enough at Drive to succeed on a 2 or higher. Geico will be out of business pretty quickly at this rate!

The fact is, even a fairly inexperienced driver has much more than a 95% chance of success. This is why we have Take 10. Many things, even difficult things with a severe penalty for failure, should be automatic most of the time for people with the proper skills.

Now, when can you NOT take 10 on Drive? When it's pouring rain, the gangsters chasing you have shot a hole in your right rear tire, and the hitchhiker you picked up a few minutes ago suddenly grows fangs and reaches for your throat. Now it's time to make a DC 30 Drive check.

 

[Sunseeker]

Really? I see taking 20 as a blindingly obvious rule, much more so than taking 10. Taking 20 just means that, in the situation where the player says "I'm going to try over and over and over until I roll a 20," you cut out the formalities. The player will eventually roll a 20, so it's pointless to make her physically do it.

The alternative to taking 20 is to say your first roll is what you got, you never do better. However, it seems weird that a quick once-over of a room is just as likely to succeed as a minute, painstaking examination taking twenty times as long.

Even in the best of situations, I've got alternatives to just having the player "roll until they win". Usually somewhere between 3-5 rolls before whatever they're trying at becomes difficult so that that course of action no longer works, or the trap springs or whatever.

"roll until you win" is a system I just don't like, same with "take a 20", but then that's part of my games design. If I'm going to let you try forever, I'll probably just make it an easy DC to begin with.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Even in the best of situations, I've got alternatives to just having the player "roll until they win". Usually somewhere between 3-5 rolls before whatever they're trying at becomes difficult so that that course of action no longer works, or the trap springs or whatever.

"roll until you win" is a system I just don't like, same with "take a 20", but then that's part of my games design. If I'm going to let you try forever, I'll probably just make it an easy DC to begin with.

It's not "roll until you win". It's "Take your time, focus, make all the preparations you need, and do it as well as you possibly can, because there are no external factors to make it difficult. And if you screw up, learn from your mistake and try it a different way." You might do this, and still lose, if a 20 is not enough to succeed.

Taking 20 assumes persistence, time and lack of risk. It won't work for disarming a bomb or picking a pocket, and should not be used for knowledge rolls (you either know it or you don't; thinking longer or harder won't put it into your brain if it's not there). But if you are, for instance, trying to throw a superb clay pot, and you have all day and don't mind wasting a lot of clay, there is no reason to roll a lot of dice. Just take your Craft (Pottery)+20, and say that's the best pot you know how to make and it took you an (undefined) bunch of tries to make it come out right.

There aren't a lot of adventurous Take 20s, because there is usually risk and/ or time pressure in things adventurers try to do; that's why they're called "adventurers." But the system is there for the few occasions when it comes in handy, and being willing to take time and make noise while searching a room may be one of those times.

 

[Sunseeker]

It's not "roll until you win". It's "Take your time, focus, make all the preparations you need, and do it as well as you possibly can, because there are no external factors to make it difficult. And if you screw up, learn from your mistake and try it a different way." You might do this, and still lose, if a 20 is not enough to succeed.

Taking 20 assumes persistence, time and lack of risk. It won't work for disarming a bomb or picking a pocket, and should not be used for knowledge rolls (you either know it or you don't; thinking longer or harder won't put it into your brain if it's not there). But if you are, for instance, trying to throw a superb clay pot, and you have all day and don't mind wasting a lot of clay, there is no reason to roll a lot of dice. Just take your Craft (Pottery)+20, and say that's the best pot you know how to make and it took you an (undefined) bunch of tries to make it come out right.

There aren't a lot of adventurous Take 20s, because there is usually risk and/ or time pressure in things adventurers try to do; that's why they're called "adventurers." But the system is there for the few occasions when it comes in handy, and being willing to take time and make noise while searching a room may be one of those times.

I understand the logic behind Take 20's, but I just don't like 'em. I don't mind if they're in the system, handwaving them away isn't difficult. I suppose that since I rarely provide "perfect situations" in which time is unlimited and danger is non-existent it's not really an issue for me. If you're going to roll for something, it might as well be important, if you're just going to give it to them, give it to them. *shrug*

 

[Agamon]

I understand the logic behind Take 20's, but I just don't like 'em. I don't mind if they're in the system, handwaving them away isn't difficult. I suppose that since I rarely provide "perfect situations" in which time is unlimited and danger is non-existent it's not really an issue for me. If you're going to roll for something, it might as well be important, if you're just going to give it to them, give it to them. *shrug*

Your games sound scary. If I didn't have the opportunity to use something, I probably wouldn't have a use for it, either, so I see what your getting at.

 

[Sunseeker]

Your games sound scary. If I didn't have the opportunity to use something, I probably wouldn't have a use for it, either, so I see what your getting at.

I try. But it's not so much about being punishing, as just about giving the players relatively little downtime and always keeping them engaged in some manner. No matter how safe they think it is, I like to keep that edge that it just might not be.

Honestly it tends to make for better games when there's less sitting around saying "I take a 20 to talk to this guy." Uh...he's a nice guy, he'll talk to you with a 2.

 

[On Puget Sound]

Honestly it tends to make for better games when there's less sitting around saying "I take a 20 to talk to this guy." Uh...he's a nice guy, he'll talk to you with a 2.

That is exactly the wrong use for a take 20. Taking 20 means accepting also getting a 1 on the way to getting to 20. If this conversation is meaningful enough to require a skill roll, then trying every possible avenue of conversation means you will surely imply something insulting about the target, his mother, his god or his fashion sense... thus preventing ever getting to that 20. There is a consequence for failure, so no take 20 allowed.

A take 10 might be fine, though, if he's a nice guy who is not averse to talking with strangers. Whether that 10 will be enough depends on the DC and your skills.