|
*stuff*For those that are saying 'I won't be tied to an answer' then take the time to come up with one rather than saying in essence that they wish fiat over printed rules. While such can be fine for a home campaign (to a point, depending on the group) its not fine in organized play where you don't have the time to earn the respect of the players as a judge and they don't have the consistency to adapt to your rulings.
-James
As a person that judges on a fairly regular basis, I'm going to stick by my answer. Because I Judge OP doesn't mean I have to have a black and white answer, I can have a stance that allows me to be varied in how I rule the use of the playing being allowed to take 10.
And for the record, being gray in the area has NEVER been an issue at any of the conventions I've judged at, nor has it ever been an issue at any of the local gamedays.
|
|
As a person that judges on a fairly regular basis, I'm going to stick by my answer. Because I Judge OP doesn't mean I have to have a black and white answer, I can have a stance that allows me to be varied in how I rule the use of the playing being allowed to take 10.
Great, how about an example where you would not allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would? And an example where you would allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would not?
Or is it 'undecided' until the time at the table on whim and 'feel'?
-James
I'm not going to debate my answer with you. We have different perspectives on it and we'll just have to agree to disagree
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The linked SKR post is from 2002.
A lot can change in nine years.
...
Still, I'd go with the December 2011 quote over the 2002 quote in a heartbeat.
What post are you guys looking at? The stuff I linked ranges from 2009 to 2011.
For instance, the "other than the task at hand" bit is from May of THIS YEAR. That hardly seems like throwaway material.
Let's check things before throwing them out, alright?
I just wanted to reiterate this, as I think I ninja'd a couple of people and it may have been missed.
In the span of less than 8 months, we have SKR saying first that the task at hand shouldn't count as a distraction/threat to prevent T10 and second that a trap is sufficient distraction from its own disabling.
If the posts I linked really were 9 years old (I don't know where Cheapy got that) I'd be fine with calling them outdated. But when there's an apparent contradiction in less than a year? I can't throw the first one out as "outdated" in good conscience, and I hope none of the rest of you can either.
I, for one, will continue to ponder and discuss this topic until I come to an understanding that reconciles as much of SKR's commentary as possible, rather than simply toss out what I don't like and call it outdated. Any material for that deliberation is appreciated. :)
|
As a person that judges on a fairly regular basis, I'm going to stick by my answer. Because I Judge OP doesn't mean I have to have a black and white answer, I can have a stance that allows me to be varied in how I rule the use of the playing being allowed to take 10.
Great, how about an example where you would not allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would? And an example where you would allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would not?
Or is it 'undecided' until the time at the table on whim and 'feel'?
-James
Just because we like to take things on a case by case basis, or rather view them as circumstantial, does not mean it is on a whim and 'feel'.
It isn't black and white, either or.
There is a way you can adhere to the spirit and letter of the rule, and still not be able to say things are 100% this way or that.
What's with all the cynicism and lack of trust with some vocal players?
Jiggy, I read the first link in that post, and in my coffee-deprived stupor stopped reading the post.
Sorry!
|
|
I'm not going to debate my answer with you. We have different perspectives on it and we'll just have to agree to disagree
As a person that judges on a fairly regular basis, I'm going to stick by my answer. Because I Judge OP doesn't mean I have to have a black and white answer, I can have a stance that allows me to be varied in how I rule the use of the playing being allowed to take 10.
Great, how about an example where you would not allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would? And an example where you would allow someone to take 10 on a skill but my qualifications would not?
Or is it 'undecided' until the time at the table on whim and 'feel'?
-James
Heck, Thea, the only person likely to ask will be me, and I liked your answer. We can play with that and have lots of fun. Maybe I'll see you at WinterWar (here's hoping you get the time off)!
Lol .. I have two people that have responded to my plea and are looking at their schedules .. so we'll see
*goes back to her purple world*
|
|
Andrew, you realize you were the person who advised me:
"But just asking the question, in and of itself, comes off as confrontational, because it makes me think you are asking me a trap question. Or if you don’t like the answer you will create drama and maybe huff off to a different table. I’d do my best to not take it that way, but most GM’s are human and will respond to something like that like most humans would… defensively."
what's with all the cynicism and lack of trust with some judges?(and this post was directed at judges, so I thought we all were here)
I don't think I was. If I was, then I must have been drunk or high (not that I do that) at the time. Because generally, I think as a player you sit down and play at the table, and if its a bad experience, you know for next time. As a GM, I always give every player at least one chance to enjoy my table. Even if we may have had disagreements on the boards.
I also think there are ways to enjoy the company of other people with quirks regardless of if the quirks are irritating. That being said, if the person is a big bad ol jerk, then they may get the big old boot. But that's gotta be pretty severe in my book. Wearing a shirt or asking a question isn't going to get the boot from me. I might be put off initially, because that really isn't SOP in the gaming world and rarely happens (never to or from me).
|
|
In my home group, we have 3 of us who GM different campaigns. One of them my friend runs, and I’m playing a Rogue type character. The only one in the party (at least until we got a new guy) who can do the finding and disabling of traps. My friend liked to run dungeon crawl modules that had, it seemed, traps around every corner. So we started searching every single 5’ square. He wanted me to roll for every square. All the other players got bored, and just started running through the traps, which then marginalized my character.
So I get why you want to use Take 10 on Perception and Disable Device. So that you don’t marginalize them (or take all the table time) and so that they don’t marginalize you (by getting bored and just blowing through the traps manually).
My buddy and I came to an agreement. He would let me roll a Spot or Search check (using old 3.5 rules) at the beginning of the dungeon with the understanding that I’m searching every square. He would apply that roll to a trap should we run across one. Once that roll got used, I would roll again. If it was a situation where the trap was particularly hard or particularly obvious that a trap was there (big door with ominous symbols on it), then I’d get a separate roll for it.
Now in PFS, this is certainly an agreement a player and a judge could make together. However, largely, you’ll notice that traps aren’t just randomly placed in PFS modules. So the searching every 5’ square is not necessary. By the way, I absolutely hate traps randomly placed very 10 to 30 feet just to make things difficult, especially if that’s all the dungeon is.
I think the best way to handle your situation, is rather than go up and say, “Hey GM, how do you handle Take 10,” or, “What skills can’t I Take 10 on?”
It might be better to say, “Hey GM, I am really a fan of taking 10 when possible, so could I suggest…”
Might get better traction than the way in which you’ve been doing it, which can come across (and obviously has) as confrontational. It also mitigates something that is highly irritating to me as a GM: a player constantly interrupting me with rules minutae (and yes, I consider the Take 10 thing rules minutae) in the middle of trying to tell a cooperative story.
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
A digression about Perception:
Stand still a round and use Perception - if you get a high enought number you get 1) the Trap in front of you, 2) the secret door across the room, 3) the paper under the dust on the table, 4) the invisible assassin above the door. Each DC is adjusted by distance (per 10').
I normally consider each of these as a separate roll. You may roll high for the paper under the rug, low for the orc in the closet, and medium for the secret door. To save time (and reduce metagaming), I ask for rolls when they're not relevant (such as a roll in an empty stretch of corridor), then apply them when they next could apply (when they reach something noteworthy).
|
|
I really appreciate this discussion and point's of a the T-10 Rule.
If anything it has started a good lengthy discussion.
I think you will run into many circumstances as well as GM's, where you may be disappointed at their perception of taking a 10.
So what is the answer, well you could ask every GM about the rule in advance. Some will give you concrete answers yes/no, some will say on a case by case basis (what I would say).
The real question would be what would you do if these answer's do not favor your opinion?
Would you not sit at a PFS table?
In a convention or gameday setting would, would this ruling perhaps prevent a legal table to play due to player requirements? Would you raise the rules point before a slot, during a slot, or after the slot?
How would this discussion help a group of players?
Is it really so critical to have a character use a T-10?
I am a fan of taking a 10 when it speeds up game play.
I am not a fan when taking 10 slows down game play.
Ultimately, this will be one of the many rules that will never have a concrete ruling, as well as vary from GM to GM.
I personally do not like it when I don't get my way. I always strive to learn from it.
Cheers,
I have a Pathfinder Savant, I can t-10 on UMD :)
|
|
Great!!! Nosig :)
Now my last post was not directed to you, but really to put a light on what may pose as a way for others to reflect on thier taking of a 10 or perhaps their fellings of their take versus anothers take of rules.
As far as FaQ in my opinion we will never EVER see this is one of many rules that have yet to be addressed.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Arizona—Tucson
|
Apparently, I love to digress about Perception...
Sir! If you are judging for me at the table, feel free to make the Perception rolls for me anytime... oh, and I would ask to T10 as often as I can, so just T10 on most of them. Sorry, forgot to ask. Do you allow T10 on perception rolls? If I'm running my Trapsmith, he has Trapspotter which (normally) gives a Passive Perception roll at 10 feet - That one I would ALWAYS want you to roll in secret (before the game starts would be fine!). The Trapspotter roll is in addition to any Active Perception rolls, so often that PC will get two rolls for Traps (T10 on the Active, and a roll by the Judge for the Passive Perception).
Sounds reasonable...
I also often step back from binary answers for skills like Perception. Someone who almost succeeded might still gain a clue ("You detect a faint scent of tobacco smoke from ahead..."), while someone who only barely succeeded might only receive vague information ("You glimpsed a tall, robed figure darting across the corridor and into the archway. You didn't catch any additional details, but you can still hear it running into the darkness.")
So to understand the Newest SKR i cannot T10 to disarm a snare trap from Smuggalers Shiv but i can take T10 to scale a cliff face 1000 feet up if i'm not under any stress but the climb?
I really want to know why this doesnt add up.
|
I don't think it would impact Copying spells since there is no "threat" for failure. The Spellcraft roll is to decipher the writing enough that you can replicate it. A failure has no impact other than you have to wait until you add another point to Spellcraft before trying again. That does not sound like a threat. Once you have deciphered the spell, the process of copying it is automatic assuming you have the resources.
Loosing money does not sound like a threat in the way most understand a threat. Sure, thematically, loosing money, especially a large amount of it could be interpreted as a threat, but IMO, for these purposes, we are talking about something that has a direct physical impact on your character.
|
|
dying is just a loss of money and/or PP
That is waaay too meta-gamey for me. I try to think of this from the perspective of the character, in game.
I doubt a character would say, "If this action kills me, just take my body back to the lodge and I'm sure Mistress Dralneen will have me raised from the dead. No problem, right?...Right?...Guys?" :-)
|
|
lol...
No, and actually, I am not really buying into either side of the argument 100%. IMO, the best advice I have is, play it the way you feel is the best way. Is it really so bad to bad a GM rule one way or the other. In either case, you are not being denied an action. Either resolve the check with a take or roll. Unless you know the target DC prior to the roll, you don;t know if you'll make it anyway. If the GM told you that you automatically failed the check, that would be one thing, but this is really a non-issue. There are a lot of actions that require GM adjudication. Sometimes it'll work the way you want, sometimes it won't.
Relax. Roll some dice. Have fun!
|
|
I don't think you are looking at this from the right perspective. Taking 10 is not something the character does in-game, it is something the player decides to do to resolve a mechanical function of the game that is used to simulate real life.
I just don't think the Take 10 rules make any sense taken from the perspective of the character. No one in their right might would make an "average" attempt at completing a task that was that important. Even someone who is highly trained and proficient with a task, would not "half-ass" it because they are just that cool, if they knew failure could mean death or at least serious damn injury.
EDIT--HEY! I don't know who you are, but no fair deleting your post after I started to reply.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
EDIT--HEY! I don't know who you are, but no fair deleting your post after I started to reply.
LOL
Sorry, It looked like I had duplicated my post (my intenet + these boards have done that before) and I thought I was deleting my duplicate post...only it wasn't a duplicate but my original.It didn't seem to be worth it as I was replying to someone very early on.
My basic point was that there are a number of non critical things we do everyday that we just do (take 10) and that take 10 is a reasonably realistic representation of that. Otherwise there would be wildly different results when performing basic daily tasks.
**Edit** Quote I was replying to added below:
The take 10 thing is one of those weird disconnects between how the real world works and how the Pathfinder world works.
In real life, you don't try and convince someone to help you out and think
"I'll make a precisely average argument to get them onside, because I reckon I'm convincing enough that that'll work."
But in Pathfinder, you can do just that with your Diplomacy. Somehow.
EDIT: Though thinking about it, I suspect door-to-door salesmen and political campaigners will 'take 10' on their Diplomacy checks through most of their working day. Hmm.
The rub in the Take 10 rules is that 'or distracted' bit. Threatened is obvious; distracted less so.
I had an interesting thought about it - I would probably say that for me, taking 10 or 20 on a skill would constitute sufficient distraction to prevent taking 10 on another skill.
So if you're taking 10 on Acrobatics to walk across a narrow ledge, then no taking 10 on Perception to spot the incoming dragon. Etc.
The distraction thing is obviously where the most table variance will be noted.
Yes, the Take 10 rules are not as simple as the paragraph in the rule book makes them seem. Yes, there will always be GM variation on how it is applied and what prevents it's use. No, the chance of failure on it's own is not enough to prevent Taking 10.
I do not believe that the chance of taking damage because of a failure is enough to prevent Taking 10. That situation is specifically called out in the Take 20 rule as preventing the use of Take 20, so if it did the same thing with Take 10, it would have said so.
Do I believe that the chance of taking damage in certain situations could prevent the use of Take 10? Yes, mainly when the failure would result in major damage or death, like triggering a fireball trap and you have no idea how powerful the explosion will be. This would definitely be enough of a distraction to make a character too nervous and/or stressed to Take 10. Or if you are disarming a needle trap and you have no clue what poison could be on it. But if you can tell that the poison on the needle is minor and will only make you sick or put you to sleep for a few rounds, then Take 10 is fine with me.
As for climbing, if there are no distractions while you are climbing, I do not care if the climb is 20 feet or 200, you can Take 10 all the way to the top. But when the wind starts gusting or the harpies start circling, you are going to roll because something like that would be enough distraction/stress to require it.
And even though I may allow Take 10 to be used in more situations that other GMs, frankly I wish the rule had some minimum requirement to use it, regardless of situation, such as needing at least one point in the skill, trained or untrained.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
Rule as you will, Nosig. I have faith that you will be judging from how you perceive the rule to work, and it will be no less a good PFS experience for your players than they would have at any other table. Be prepared (which you have already shown you are!) for table variance with other GMs, but enjoy the game nonetheless. My only advice, never walk away from a table because you fear the GMs ability to judge a game; I have learned something new every time I have sat a table with a new GM. Some of the most obscure rules see light that way... rules you might have missed. This especially true if you played/ran for an Organized Play system with 3.5 rules. some of the intuitive responses we have are built upon that foundation, but have changed. A newer GM who has only EVER ran Pathfinder might still teach you something!
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't think the Take 10 rules make any sense taken from the perspective of the character. No one in their right might would make an "average" attempt at completing a task that was that important. Even someone who is highly trained and proficient with a task, would not "half-ass" it because they are just that cool, if they knew failure could mean death or at least serious damn injury.
Bob, I don't see "taking 10" as half-assed. (I would see "taking 0" as half-assed, not even trying.)
Let's say taking 10 were the norm. Then rolling the die is the game mechanic for taking chances. It's going with your gut, rather than relying on your training. "I don't know if this will work..." If you're defusing a bomb, it's pulling on the red wire without checking to see if it's the primer or detonator first. If you're right, you've done a much better job defusing the bomb, maybe defusing a device much trickier than you're trained to handle, because you decide to roll the dice and you get lucky. If you're wrong ...
If you're climbing a rope, rolling for the success is trying those techniques you've seen people better than yourself do, and maybe it works but maybe you slip and fall. Your friends tell you to quit clowning around. Taking 10 is following standard procedure. Whether you're allowed to do that or not shouldn't be based on how long the rope is, or how hard the fall hurts if you *do* screw up. But it makes sense to me that you can't use standard operating procedures in a situation they didn't cover, like when there's ogre children throwing rocks down at you from the ledge you're trying to reach.
At least, that's the perspective I bring to the table when I'm the GM. I appreciate that others might have a different attitude.
|
|
How do we minimise "the degree of variance" we will be bringing to the table as Judges in Organized Play?
Different Judges will rule things differently - but they should at least rule Rules the same. Otherwise we get Judges saying "I don't care what the Rules say - you can't do that at my table!" (please control your knee-jerk response here, I am not attacking you. What if the Judge in question is objecting to you playing a character of a different gender? Male playing a female halfling for example. I've had a judge who objected to this.)
In regards to the variance, I don't think there is going to be a lot that we can do about it. From my understanding, the rule was written and left as is (switching from previous editions to pfrpg) with the intent that it was something left to the judges discretion (oh nos!!!!!).
So the best we can do is if you have a huge issue with always wanting to use it (as Nosig has described) then your best bet is to get to the game early and talk with the judge. Explaining the situation will help them to determine ahead of time what their stance is going to be and the player can decide if they want to sit at that table or not.
For me it comes down to the fact that the player has certain specifications that they want to play under and they are the one that needs to make the decisions about sitting at the table. I don't tell you that you cannot sit at my table if you want to take 10 all the time.
However, I will tell you that you can't take 10 and you have to actually pick up the dice and roll if I feel the conditions are not favorable to being un-distracted.
I think this thread has been good in that it has highlighted how different people have interpreted this (which was kind of the intent no?). But in the end we, as judges, will have to make a decision on the fly when gaming and that's what we do.