Getting rid of "Taking 10"

[Dausuul]

Jumping over a chasm. stretch a bit, look how far it is. Try a jump to compare. take measure, run and jump. Two minutes in game time...

Just a note, you can't do this. Jumping over a chasm has a consequence for failure; therefore you cannot take 20, which implies trying over and over and over until you get it right. You can take 10 if you're not under pressure (e.g., being chased).

Take the dice out of the equation (and the auto-success "take 10" nonsense).

This is irrelevant to anything being discussed. If you're taking the dice out of the equation, then there's no point talking about the mechanics you'd be using if you hadn't.

 

[Mattachine]

T
Players: We know there's a secret door here somewhere! We search for secret doors.
DM: Where do you search, and how?

I know some people love that sort of gameplay, but I hated it as a DM, and disliked it as a player. It made for many "gotcha" moments:


Player: "We search the room."
DM: "Where and how?"
Player: "We lift up the rug with a 10' pole, we look for false bottoms in the desk, we lift up the mattress, and we search the floor for trapdoors."
DM: "You find nothing in the places you search."
Player: "Remind us again about the layout of the room."
DM: "Aside from the floor, the rug, the bed, and the desk, there is a table, a chimney, a wooden crate which is open, the stone walls, and the ceiling."
Player: "Can't we just search all of them?"
DM: "How do you search each? With what? In what order?"
Player: *sigh*

In old edition games I ran, this simply led to players having a prepared statement about searches--similar to "detect mode" when dungeon crawling. In other words, not having a system that assumes adventures are smart and experienced meant that the players simply created the same system, anyway.

 

[Sunseeker]

I know some people love that sort of gameplay, but I hated it as a DM, and disliked it as a player. It made for many "gotcha" moments:


Player: "We search the room."
DM: "Where and how?"
Player: "We lift up the rug with a 10' pole, we look for false bottoms in the desk, we lift up the mattress, and we search the floor for trapdoors."
DM: "You find nothing in the places you search."
Player: "Remind us again about the layout of the room."
DM: "Aside from the floor, the rug, the bed, and the desk, there is a table, a chimney, a wooden crate which is open, the stone walls, and the ceiling."
Player: "Can't we just search all of them?"
DM: "How do you search each? With what? In what order?"
Player: *sigh*

In old edition games I ran, this simply led to players having a prepared statement about searches--similar to "detect mode" when dungeon crawling. In other words, not having a system that assumes adventures are smart and experienced meant that the players simply created the same system, anyway.

Yeah, I never found that to be very much fun, either someone developed a comprehensive statement, or we spent all day asking if the dirt in the corner was actually a polymorphed coconut until we found the specific question that the DM wanted us to ask.

 

[BobTheNob]

Im piping into this topic late but...

Completely For take 10 (or equivalent "dont bother rolling" situations). 2 reasons
1) Sometimes there are points in the adventure I wanted to expedite, which arent particularly exciting for the players. Things you want to brush over rather than linger on.
2) If a roll should fail, I would want that the fail result means something interesting happens. If the fail result just stalls the plot or screws over play, as a DM I prefer to have a mechanism that that can be avoided

There were two things in 4e I did differently, which was
1) I based it on whether you were trained or not (i.e. instead of "rule of 10", I did "rule of trained")
2) The DM decided when it applied, not the players

 

[Kynn]

Why do you keep using professionals in your examples anyway like they never fail? Did Michael Jordan hit every basket? Did Beckham make every goal? How many takes do you think professional actors and actresses go through when making movies, even the ones that have been doing it for years and years? There is always going to be a chance of error no matter how good at something we are.

"Michael Jordan taking 20" would be Michael Jordan getting an unlimited number of basketballs and being able to take his time on each shot. He'd eventually make a basket.

"Multiple takes from actors when making movies" is taking 20.

 

[Kynn]

Are they in a stressful situation? I guess so...

taking ten means: without preasure, an easy task. Taking 20 means: a task of normal hard difficulty. You succeed if you have plenty of time. Actually it makes little sense for a lot of skills to only take 6 secnds of game time. So I assume, that normal people just take 20 whenever they do something.

Jumping over a chasm. stretch a bit, look how far it is. Try a jump to compare. take measure, run and jump. Two minutes in game time...

A small chasm. Easily jumped over when there is no one firing arrows at you.

Rolling only needed, when arrows are fied at you, someone is chasing you etc... you could miss the right moment to jump, slip and fall...

Rollong for something shoul only be your last resort, if taking 20 is not possible.

And picking a lock: you examine you pick first, test it in the lock, if it is the right one, be very carefull not to break it. Don´t overrush it if it gets stuck. 4edition has a sightly different mentality compared to 3rd edition. (i let the players roll, and then just decide how long it takes depending on the roll.)

You can't take 20 when jumping over a pit. You can only take 10.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You can't take 20 when jumping over a pit. You can only take 10.

I know... risk of failure and such... but if there is a lot of time, and the chasm is not too big, chance of failure... maybe take 15 or so would be better, I guess.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just a note, you can't do this. Jumping over a chasm has a consequence for failure; therefore you cannot take 20, which implies trying over and over and over until you get it right. You can take 10 if you're not under pressure (e.g., being chased).



This is irrelevant to anything being discussed. If you're taking the dice out of the equation, then there's no point talking about the mechanics you'd be using if you hadn't.

Yes, maybe taking 20 is a bit of a stretch here, but you most certainly can´t take ten when you are in a stressful situation. Of course it is DM decision if the situation is stressful or not...

 

[Vegepygmy]

I know... risk of failure and such... but if there is a lot of time, and the chasm is not too big, chance of failure... maybe take 15 or so would be better, I guess.

What you're talking about now is covered by the "DM's best friend" (DMG, page 30). If you think that the circumstances are such that the character should be able to "take 12" or "take 15" instead of the usual 10, you simply assign the appropriate modifier to their skill check.

A lot of people seem to forget that concept for some reason.

 

[Gentlegamer]

"Michael Jordan taking 20" would be Michael Jordan getting an unlimited number of basketballs and being able to take his time on each shot. He'd eventually make a basket.

Michael Jordan taking 20 is the number of steps he gets to take while traveling without being whistled.