How do you guys handle Snese Motive?

[irdeggman]

The "house rule" part is Chris deciding for his players that their characters will take 10, not that the characters are allowed to take 10 in the first place.

From the source

Getting players to take 10 can be like pulling teeth. . . .He complained that his heroic character shoudn't have failed in that situation. He was right. He should've taken 10.

{Conscious effort or decision}

When I was refering to his house rule - what I was pointing to was that in his opinion it is a "normal" thing to do that players forget to invoke hence they normally take 10 when the situation arises. Which is pretty much what you are refering to when you say that "cautious" is the same as as "normal".

 

[Vegepygmy]

When I was refering to his house rule - what I was pointing to was that in his opinion it is a "normal" thing to do that players forget to invoke hence they normally take 10 when the situation arises.

I'm having trouble parsing what you're saying here, so I'm a bit confused. If it helps clarify things any, I concur with Chris Sims that many players frequently forget they can take 10 and instead roll when they really shouldn't. I also concur that it can be a good thing when DMing for such players to simply skip the step of actually asking the player if he wants to roll or take 10, and just assume that he will do the smart thing.

Now, how this in any way supports your interpretation of the "intent" of taking 10 and 20, I'm afraid I don't understand.

Which is pretty much what you are refering to when you say that "cautious" is the same as as "normal".

I have never said that "cautious" is the same as "normal." There are some situations (driving a car, for example) where a certain level of caution would be normal, in my opinion, but that's not the same as equating the two.

 

[irdeggman]

I'm having trouble parsing what you're saying here, so I'm a bit confused. If it helps clarify things any, I concur with Chris Sims that many players frequently forget they can take 10 and instead roll when they really shouldn't. I also concur that it can be a good thing when DMing for such players to simply skip the step of actually asking the player if he wants to roll or take 10, and just assume that he will do the smart thing.

Now, how this in any way supports your interpretation of the "intent" of taking 10 and 20, I'm afraid I don't understand.

]

What he said was that people needed to consciously take 10 (which they forgot to) - hence it is not a "normal" roll but a conscious action.

He then went on to house-rule it so that it was no longer a conscious action (hence the reason it is a house-rule since the RAW requires it to be a conscous action).


There is essentially no difference between the player's decision and the PC's actions in this case since the player is describing what the PC is doing. If the player doesn't specify that the PC is taking ten then the PC isn't, which means that it must be a conscious decision or else the PC would automatically be taking 10 regardless of the player's decision. This is what Chris' house-rule did - was make it an automatic check and no longer a conscious decision.

I have never said that "cautious" is the same as "normal." There are some situations (driving a car, for example) where a certain level of caution would be normal, in my opinion, but that's not the same as equating the two.

I'm sorry. You said that "careful" was "normal" or more specifically by driving normal you can avoid simple mistakes.

Now this would translate into a higher bonus for driving that you have than someone who is just learning to drive. You are "taking 10" by "paying attention" to what you are doing rather than just attempting it (the equivalent of a random roll) would put you at a result above the "simple success" rate. The novice driver would most likely have fewer bonuses and thus would most likely not get the same result (or near the amount of success).

 

[Vegepygmy]

What he said was that people needed to consciously take 10 (which they forgot to) - hence it is not a "normal" roll but a conscious action.

A conscious action for the player, yes.

There is essentially no difference between the player's decision and the PC's actions in this case since the player is describing what the PC is doing.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. In my view, the fact that the player is describing what the PC is doing has no bearing whatsoever upon whether the PC is doing something consciously or not.

If the player doesn't specify that the PC is taking ten then the PC isn't, which means that it must be a conscious decision or else the PC would automatically be taking 10 regardless of the player's decision. This is what Chris' house-rule did - was make it an automatic check and no longer a conscious decision.

I get that. I just don't see how you make the leap that because the player makes a conscious decision about what game mechanic to use, the PC must also be making a conscious decision.

And I suspect this is at the root of our disagreement: is "taking 10" the norm or the exception? Based on your comments above, I think you would say it is the exception, because the player (and thus the PC) has to consciously decide to do it. I, on the other hand, consider "taking 10" to be the norm; it's what everyone does almost all the time when they aren't in unusual circumstances (i.e., threatened or distracted).

That's what I think Chris Sims was really saying in regards to his "house rule" -- that if the players really understood the rules correctly, they'd be taking 10, because that's how the people who wrote the rules intended to model ordinary, everyday skill checks like driving a car around town. They didn't expect players to choose to roll the checks and crash their cars 1 out of every 20 times they get behind the wheel. (If you ask me, those writers forgot two basic principles: most players like to roll dice, and few players read the rules very closely.)

I'm sorry. You said that "careful" was "normal" or more specifically by driving normal you can avoid simple mistakes.

I still don't think you understand me on this point. What I was attempting to illustrate is that when I am driving "normally," I am doing so carefully/cautiously/conscientiously enough to avoid making simple mistakes (not that by driving normally I can avoid simple mistakes). In game terms, I'm taking 10...because if I wasn't, I'd be rolling my skill checks, which would mean that at least 5% of the time I'd be making a simple mistake.

 

[irdeggman]

A conscious action for the player, yes.

This is where we fundamentally disagree. In my view, the fact that the player is describing what the PC is doing has no bearing whatsoever upon whether the PC is doing something consciously or not.

I get that. I just don't see how you make the leap that because the player makes a conscious decision about what game mechanic to use, the PC must also be making a conscious decision.

So by this logic the PC always does what would be the best thing regardless of what the player describes.

The PC is constantly making knowledge checks, choosing to use power attack (and what amount to remove/apply), etc.

The way you descirbe things the player is merely along for the ride - IMO the game was never designed to follow that path at all.

For example in the games I play in the DM is looking for the player to descibe the PC's actions - he is specifically looking for the player to use words like "carefullly checking" in order to invoke the take 10 mechanic. He is looking for the player to make a description of the PC actions that invoke the take 10 mechanic.

And I suspect this is at the root of our disagreement: is "taking 10" the norm or the exception? Based on your comments above, I think you would say it is the exception, because the player (and thus the PC) has to consciously decide to do it. I, on the other hand, consider "taking 10" to be the norm; it's what everyone does almost all the time when they aren't in unusual circumstances (i.e., threatened or distracted).

And nowhere in the rules does it say taking 10 is the normal. It says it will give you an "average" result, never normal.

That's what I think Chris Sims was really saying in regards to his "house rule" -- that if the players really understood the rules correctly, they'd be taking 10, because that's how the people who wrote the rules intended to model ordinary, everyday skill checks like driving a car around town. They didn't expect players to choose to roll the checks and crash their cars 1 out of every 20 times they get behind the wheel. (If you ask me, those writers forgot two basic principles: most players like to roll dice, and few players read the rules very closely.)

Nope I absolutely disagree.

He specifically made it a house-rule because he thought the same way you do - not because that is how the designers had thought. {That was the real reason I pointed it out - this similarilty in your thinking and the fact that he specifically said it was a house-rule because of it.}

He did it because it made things easier.

He also included the passive scores in his "house rule".

I am also sure that Chris wasn't even part of the "design" group for 3rd ed (which created the take 10 and 20 rules) since per his profile he started working for small d20 companies in 2003 (3rd ed came out in like 2000).

"Chris Sims started out working for small d20 companies in 2003, then landed a freelance editor gig for Wizards RPG R&D. Wizards finally got annoyed enough by his constant applications to hire him as the Duel Masters editor in 2005. From there, Chris wheedled his way into RPG R&D as an editor, and finally became a story designer after masterminding a few choice assassinations. His credits include Monster Manual V, Secrets of Sarlona, Rules Compendium, and the Eberron Survival Guide (thanks, Logan!)."

I still don't think you understand me on this point. What I was attempting to illustrate is that when I am driving "normally," I am doing so carefully/cautiously/conscientiously enough to avoid making simple mistakes (not that by driving normally I can avoid simple mistakes). In game terms, I'm taking 10...because if I wasn't, I'd be rolling my skill checks, which would mean that at least 5% of the time I'd be making a simple mistake.

And what I am saying is that part of your "normal" is a conscious decision to follow your training and not to focus on other things - conversations, cell phone, radios. You would mak a conscious choice to not answer the cell phone while driving, you would make a conscious choice to not turn the radio up too loud, you would make a conscious choice to not do distracting things. It is still a consciouls choice.

If you have lots of driving experience your skill modifier would be much higher than one is is just starting out - so that you would get an success on an average difficulty task without even having to roll (that is a "1" would yield an 10 result. Someone with a low modifier would need to take 10 in order to ensure that they would get a success on an average difficulty task. That is the difference. IMO you are mixing these two things together.

 

[Vegepygmy]

So by this logic the PC always does what would be the best thing regardless of what the player describes.

Change "best" to "most game-mechanically appropriate" and you have summarized my position precisely. In my games, if the player says: "I run up and attack the goblin, throwing caution to the wind and just doing my best to hit him," I interpret that for him as a Charge. I don't interpret that as a decision to Run up to the goblin -- not because Running up to the goblin is not the "best" thing to do, but because Charging is a closer fit in terms of game mechanics to what he's describing.

For example in the games I play in the DM is looking for the player to descibe the PC's actions - he is specifically looking for the player to use words like "carefullly checking" in order to invoke the take 10 mechanic. He is looking for the player to make a description of the PC actions that invoke the take 10 mechanic.

In my games, there is no need to specifically describe actions that invoke the take 10 mechanic because--as I've said before--taking 10 is the norm. If someone says: "I climb up the rope ladder," and they're not threatened or distracted, I'll assume they're doing the game-mechanically appropriate thing (taking 10) unless they specificially describe actions that invoke the skill roll mechanic.

So what I do is pretty much the opposite of what you do, for the reason I said earlier: you think rolling is the norm, while I think it is the exception.

(By the way, in my games, if someone says he's "carefully checking" something, we generally take that to mean he's taking 20 to Search. We use the phrase "routine search" to indicate taking 10 on a Search. Again, I think this highlights the difference in our interpretation of the take 10 mechanic.)

And nowhere in the rules does it say taking 10 is the normal. It says it will give you an "average" result, never normal.

I think it's implicit in the rule: you can take 10 whenever you aren't threatened or distracted. Normally, you aren't threatened or distracted, and normally, taking 10 is enough to succeed on a skill check. Thus, characters would normally take 10 rather than roll.

Nope I absolutely disagree.

Yeah, I know.

We've clearly reached that point where we understand each other's positions, and simply disagree with each other. There's not much more to say after that.