Getting rid of "Taking 10"

[TrippyHippy]

The basic advantage of 'taking 10/20' rules are that they enable a bit of free form play to exist as a possibility in the game, without much fuss in their implementation. You may not recognise that style of play, but to deny it as a choice for DMs seems rather limiting.

 

[Sunseeker]

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.

Right, if it's interesting or important, it's worth a roll, if it's not a big deal then I'll just tell my players the answers to what they're asking.

 

[Agamon]

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's not quite how it works. I can understand why you wouldn't like it if you think that's how it works.

If you were just being glib, it is humorous.

 

[Sunseeker]

The basic advantage of 'taking 10/20' rules are that they enable a bit of free form play to exist as a possibility in the game, without much fuss in their implementation. You may not recognise that style of play, but to deny it as a choice for DMs seems rather limiting.

I'm not following. How does allowing players to take a 10 or a 20 make the game more free form?

That's not quite how it works. I can understand why you wouldn't like it if you think that's how it works.

If you were just being glib, it is humorous.

I was, but I also recall several games in which that was how people used "take a 20".

 

[Agamon]

I was, but I also recall several games in which that was how people used "take a 20".

I'm not fond of the phrase "playing it wrong", but in this case, by the RAW, those people were indeed playing it wrong.

 

[Agamon]

I suppose the bottom line is this: Take 20 is for occasions when the player has the opportunity and desire to retry a skill check over and over until successful or it becomes obvious that he won't be successful. If the redundancy of doing the skill check over and over would not add to the game in any way, speeding it up with this rule is a good thing. If not, then rolling is still an option. If you'd never use the rule, then I guess you just don't use it, but it probably should still be there.

 

[Kynn]

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.

If the trap can spring or the difficulty increases with each roll, then it clearly falls outside of the stated uses for "take 20."

So what's the problem?

 

[Sunseeker]

If the trap can spring or the difficulty increases with each roll, then it clearly falls outside of the stated uses for "take 20."

So what's the problem?

I already addressed this earlier. I don't mind if it's in the game, I just don't like it and don't use it. *shrug*

 

[catsclaw227]

I never believed in taking 20. Taking 10 was alright, but always when you weren't being pressured. Which wasn't very often.

I am torn about this one.

When I am troubled with a programming issue and a spend unpressured time to attempt to solve the problem, I suppose I do it at the maximum level of my skill in that. That's taking 20.

But if I am asked to solve a problem where there is not an immediate pressure, but it is generally below my skill set, I can see taking 10 to say, hey... "Give me a curosry look at this and solve or fix it. Remember, I am an expert locksmith. (+15 in locksmithy). That's taking 10.

Anywhoos.... this is a very challenging issue for 5e developers. I've seen threads on othet sites that discuss problems with social skills, DC vs Saving throws, at will vs vancian..... Oy Vey!

 

[TrippyHippy]

I'm not following. How does allowing players to take a 10 or a 20 make the game more free form?.

It provides a simple way of adjudicating actions without always needing to chuck a dice on the table. The player simply describes an action and the DM can simply determine whether the character succeeds based upon his relative skill level. I have heard that the next edition may be doing DCs vs straight Ability scores, which may be a more intuitive way of achieving the same thing.