Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes. Since the scenario author decides whether there is intended to be danger or distraction for any given skill checks, it would be great if authors could spell out when Take 10 is allowed on skill checks if they intend for players to be able to Take 10.
I prefer the current system, where the scenario author tells us when there is a good reason not to allow take ten.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I aggressively and vehemently disagree with you that we should tie GM's hands from using fluff text in a scenario to change the circumstances of whether a check includes immediate danger or distraction. That is one of the few leeways GMs have to modify circumstances in a scenario, and it is one I would hate to lose.+1
+2
|
I have several skill monkeys who spend a large amount of resources bumping skills into high bonuses specifically so that they can take 10 and succeed 80% of the time. They invest in this at the expense of other aspects of the game.A skill monkey should be able to succeed at LEAST that often rolling dice. If you have sklll focus thats a 15% increase in your chance of success. If you have a +5 magical dodad thats still a 25% chance increase of success. They still provide a benefit whether or not you take 10.
Not really.
If my halfling has a +23 bonus to Climb and I try to climb a 200-ft. tall natural rock face (DC 25) I really should succeed all day long. That is what the take 10 rule is there for.
If I roll the check, there is only a 36% chance that I will make it to the top without falling at some point along the way.
Clear sunny day and a character that has devoted considerable resources toward being a master at climbing is going to fail 64% of the time.
|
I find it hilarious that in these threads it always seems like ppl believe it's an all or nothing issue of table variation. Like, on Monday they'll encounter this angelic GM who lets them take 10 on every skill check, and their character only lived because of it, but on Tuesday they encountered this GM that smelled like Brimstone, who never let them Take 10 ever, and who ended up ripping apart their character sheet by the end of the session.
|
|
If my halfling has a +23 bonus to Climb and I try to climb a 200-ft. tall natural rock face (DC 25) I really should succeed all day long. That is what the take 10 rule is there for.
More than a few scenarios seemed to have failed statistics when requiring multiple checks. (particularly ones with increasing difficulties)
If I roll the check, there is only a 36% chance that I will make it to the top without falling at some point along the way.
Nope. You only fall when you miss by 5 or more. So you'll never fall, you just won't always make it in record time.
If my halfling has a +23 bonus to Climb and I try to climb a 200-ft. tall natural rock face (DC 25) I really should succeed all day long. That is what the take 10 rule is there for.
If I roll the check, there is only a 36% chance that I will make it to the top without falling at some point along the way.
Clear sunny day and a character that has devoted considerable resources toward being a master at climbing is going to fail 64% of the time.
I agree with you in principle, but your example is flawed. Your halfling will never fall off because you'll never fail by 5. You'll have to pause at some point, but you'll never fall.
Edit:Ninja'd!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it hilarious that in these threads it always seems like ppl believe it's an all or nothing issue of table variation. Like, on Monday they'll encounter this angelic GM who lets them take 10 on every skill check, and their character only lived because of it, but on Tuesday they encountered this GM that smelled like Brimstone, who never let them Take 10 ever, and who ended up ripping apart their character sheet by the end of the session.
My experience is that it is all or nothing.
I have certainly sat at a more than one table where the GM would not allow take 10 (or take 20 for checks that are normally able to be retried without consequence of failure, such as searching for traps or treasure).
Well then I have a separate question as far as pacing and Drama go? How does Skill mastery function in regards to a check not allowing T10 with pacing and drama issues such as having a series of checks that the same result multiple times would be against the narrative?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actively disallowing the Take 10 mechanic would be against the rules.
Claiming that certain checks will require a roll, due to the reasons outlined in the non-FAQ (I love calling it that, btw), is perfectly acceptable.
I know more than one GM who will delight upon reading this:
...that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment.
I can foresee them using this line to justify actively disallowing the take 10 mechanic.
It cannot possibly be that the only two GMs in the world who will do so live in my small neck of the woods.
Well then I have a separate question as far as pacing and Drama go? How does Skill mastery function in regards to a check not allowing T10 with pacing and drama issues such as having a series of checks that the same result multiple times would be against the narrative?
I have been assuming that everyone agrees that Skill Mastery allows taking 10 without an option for the GM to intercede. The details on UMD will have some table variation, but fine for all others. The pacing and drama pertains to when you determine it to be distracting/dangerous, not a higher level switch on taking 10.
In response to Berinor
How about the basement in The Wounded Wisp?Thank you. Exactly. I have a friend who truly believes that if a 3' jump has any risk of falling damage, then you cannot take 10, and so he has level 20 heroes falling into trivial gaps that any dull bloke in the real world would jump over without a second thought. He insists this is the correct way to run the game. He likes "gotcha" gaming, I guess.
You had a level 20 character in the wounded whisp?
At a recent convention, I played in the Tests of Tar Kuata. During the 5th trial in that module, I was told that there is an "impossibly tall stone pillar" that my PC must climb.Actually, this is not "distraction" This is the other half of the non-faq "where a series of identical results would be immersion breaking or nonsensical or would remove drama."
Basically, in this case, they have abstracted all the rolls for climbing the pillar into a much smaller number of rolls. (I haven't read the scenario, but it is something like 1 roll for each third of the pillar, as opposed to one roll per move action.)
In return however, they are invoking the no-take-ten the same way a GM might say "you can take ten for most of the rolls, but I am going to disallow take ten at the midpoint and the top."
Bolding Mine we already have people calling for immersion breaking and such based off of taking 10 as reason for not allowingit. Skill Mastery doesn't say you can Take 10 when its Immersion breaking or nonsensical. So I have to ask would GMs be allowed to shut down skill mastery?
|
|
Actively disallowing the Take 10 mechanic would be against the rules.
It would be against a board post clarification made by a developer which has been kinda sorta overriden by an FAQ pushing the tug of war more towards the DM. One of the rules is immediate danger, and the definitions of immediate danger excluding while dangling over a river of lava with lava breathing pirhana in it is nuttier than the lava breathing pirhana used in that example.
Claiming that certain checks will require a roll, due to the reasons outlined in the non-FAQ (I love calling it that, btw), is perfectly acceptable.
I WANT TO DRINK YOUR TEAR... erm. I mean. Drama! ACTION!
|
Actually, this is not "distraction" This is the other half of the non-faq "where a series of identical results would be immersion breaking or nonsensical or would remove drama."
Basically, in this case, they have abstracted all the rolls for climbing the pillar into a much smaller number of rolls. (I haven't read the scenario, but it is something like 1 roll for each third of the pillar, as opposed to one roll per move action.)
In return however, they are invoking the no-take-ten the same way a GM might say "you can take ten for most of the rolls, but I am going to disallow take ten at the midpoint and the top."
Yes, this is one that I've run. I cannot remember if you are directed in the scenario to disallow taking 10, but they have changed the mechanic so that both the DCs and the number of times you need to roll are different than the standard climbing rules. I wouldn't have a problem with disallowing Taking 10 for this trial. (Can't remember what my players did.)
|
BNW the issue arises when party A uses T10 as was previously deemed normal for a risky task and does just fine, but then Party B hits the same task is told they can't and end up losing hp/death and use up resources that would not have been used otherwise.The guide to organized play allows for table variation. It allows GMs to add environmental effects that are part of the fluff descriptions of encounters.
Now we have another situation where GNs get to use their discretion. This is a good thing.
I disagree that this level of table variation is a good thing. This level of table variation can completely invalidate a character build.
I have several skill monkeys who spend a large amount of resources bumping skills into high bonuses specifically so that they can take 10 and succeed 80% of the time. They invest in this at the expense of other aspects of the game.
Some GMs have stated directly that they hate the entire concept of take 10 and will never allow it, no matter what. Now I no longer have a rule that tells says "sorry, you have to, even if you don't like it".
Now my character is pointless, because it's all down to dice luck instead of my choices. The high-DPR, barely-any-skills guys can take over my role in the party just because they have better dice luck than I do. (There's a reason I play poker instead of slot machines: I want to have at much control over my destiny as possible. I don't like blind luck.)
Now I've wasted my 750 gp of consumables I took before I found out that this particular GM is an anti-take-10 guy. (Or worse, because this GM said he allows take 10 but then always found some reason not to allow it.)
Not knowing whether my character is an expert or an idiot from table to table is not the kind of variation I consider "good". Now I have to start quizzing GMs about their take-10 rules before the game to decide what character to play or if I think I can play at all.
I think you missed my point.
I'm not advocating table variation for whether take 10 is, or is not, possible period. Rather that environmental effects hinted at in encounter descriptions but not given mechanics, allows me to have that environment affect the characters in some way. Certain environmental effects may cause distraction or immediate danger. Some might not.
This doesn't invalidate your skill monkey, it just makes the environment more potentially dynamic.
The check itself, though, without any environmental or other external factors or influences should not cause take 10 to be disallowed.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
In response to Berinor
Bolding Mine we already have people calling for immersion breaking and such based off of taking 10 as reason for not allowingit. Skill Mastery doesn't say you can Take 10 when its Immersion breaking or nonsensical. So I have to ask would GMs be allowed to shut down skill mastery?How about the basement in The Wounded Wisp?Thank you. Exactly. I have a friend who truly believes that if a 3' jump has any risk of falling damage, then you cannot take 10, and so he has level 20 heroes falling into trivial gaps that any dull bloke in the real world would jump over without a second thought. He insists this is the correct way to run the game. He likes "gotcha" gaming, I guess.
You had a level 20 character in the wounded whisp?
At a recent convention, I played in the Tests of Tar Kuata. During the 5th trial in that module, I was told that there is an "impossibly tall stone pillar" that my PC must climb.Actually, this is not "distraction" This is the other half of the non-faq "where a series of identical results would be immersion breaking or nonsensical or would remove drama."
Basically, in this case, they have abstracted all the rolls for climbing the pillar into a much smaller number of rolls. (I haven't read the scenario, but it is something like 1 roll for each third of the pillar, as opposed to one roll per move action.)
In return however, they are invoking the no-take-ten the same way a GM might say "you can take ten for most of the rolls, but I am going to disallow take ten at the midpoint and the top."
Nope. General Principle, things are intended to work.
You got skill mastery so that you could do it exactly the same way, every time, no matter what is going on. Go you. Take 10 to your hearts content.
The problem with that Andrew is what is part of the check? Some people want the fear of falling to be enough. Others want whats in the pit your jumping over to be and issue. That is the disconnect here some people believe T10 is just so good it should be ban-hammered out of use.
In response to Berinor
Bolding Mine we already have people calling for immersion breaking and such based off of taking 10 as reason for not allowing it. Skill Mastery doesn't say you can Take 10 when its Immersion breaking or nonsensical. So I have to ask would GMs be allowed to shut down skill mastery?How about the basement in The Wounded Wisp?Thank you. Exactly. I have a friend who truly believes that if a 3' jump has any risk of falling damage, then you cannot take 10, and so he has level 20 heroes falling into trivial gaps that any dull bloke in the real world would jump over without a second thought. He insists this is the correct way to run the game. He likes "gotcha" gaming, I guess.
You had a level 20 character in the wounded whisp?
At a recent convention, I played in the Tests of Tar Kuata. During the 5th trial in that module, I was told that there is an "impossibly tall stone pillar" that my PC must climb.Actually, this is not "distraction" This is the other half of the non-faq "where a series of identical results would be immersion breaking or nonsensical or would remove drama."
Basically, in this case, they have abstracted all the rolls for climbing the pillar into a much smaller number of rolls. (I haven't read the scenario, but it is something like 1 roll for each third of the pillar, as opposed to one roll per move action.)
In return however, they are invoking the no-take-ten the same way a GM might say "you can take ten for most of the rolls, but I am going to disallow take ten at the midpoint and the top."
Nope. General Principle, things are intended to work.
You got skill mastery so that you could do it exactly the same way, every time, no matter what is going on. Go you. Take 10 to your hearts content.
Prior to the non-faq I don't believe (and i could be wrong) that anyone would have though nonsenical or immersion breaking results were a reason to Deny T10, so skill mastery has never been up against this ruling before.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I am concerned, a lot of this is a non issue.
If GMs are abusing their discretion and eliminating all take 10s, the answer is to talk to your VO. If the problem is a VO, take it up with Mike Brock.
Mike Brock has repeatedly said on issues like this that he wants people to be able to use their judgement, and that if the do not have the judgement, they shouldn't be GMing.
An awful lot of this sounds like adversarial GMing, which is against the spirit of PFS.
|
|
I am wondering what the GMing landscape looks like for taking 10 on Stealth checks.
So,taking 10 on Stealth, OK or not?
-Matt
Being a T10 liberal, I allow it.
In fact, most all of my NPCs T10 on stealth (ambush) and perception (lookout) most of the time when they are waiting around in some dungeon waiting to be killed. Reason being is expediency first and foremost, and secondly because if you have a dozen NPCs all rolling stealth/perception, it negates stealth on both sides because they will inevitably end up with some blown stealth checks from a group of ambushers and some crazy perception successes on those looking out for sneaking characters. This way, the PC actions/rolls matter more (i.e. did they do well on their respective stealth checks, however they decided to "roll" them).
The only time I don't allow T10 is for a reactive check, "Everyone make a Sense Motive", or when they are in initiative (i.e. fighting or chasing), or when there are extreme environmental reasons (though I expect I would be running most of those in initiative - like a sinking ship or something).
|
|
As far as I am concerned, a lot of this is a non issue.
If GMs are abusing their discretion and eliminating all take 10s, the answer is to talk to your VO. If the problem is a VO, take it up with Mike Brock.
Mike Brock has repeatedly said on issues like this that he wants people to be able to use their judgement, and that if the do not have the judgement, they shouldn't be GMing.
An awful lot of this sounds like adversarial GMing, which is against the spirit of PFS.
That's not really fair though. Lots of GM's (including myself about 2 or 3 years ago) were taught that the pit or the chance of falling constituted distraction or immediate danger. So that's how we interpreted it. There is no language that directly disputes that interpretation.
So using that interpretation is not abuse of GM powers.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
As far as I am concerned, a lot of this is a non issue.
If GMs are abusing their discretion and eliminating all take 10s, the answer is to talk to your VO. If the problem is a VO, take it up with Mike Brock.
Mike Brock has repeatedly said on issues like this that he wants people to be able to use their judgement, and that if the do not have the judgement, they shouldn't be GMing.
An awful lot of this sounds like adversarial GMing, which is against the spirit of PFS.
That's not really fair though. Lots of GM's (including myself about 2 or 3 years ago) were taught that the pit or the chance of falling constituted distraction or immediate danger. So that's how we interpreted it. There is no language that directly disputes that interpretation.
So using that interpretation is not abuse of GM powers.
I agree.
I was talking (specifically) about abuse.
"Well, if you fail the appraise check you won't realize this is the secondary prestige, so that is a danger, no take ten.
"Well, if you don't make this knowledge check, you won't get +2 initiative when the NPCs turn out to be secretly hostile, and try to eat you, danger, no T10, etc."
People were talking about GMs who dissallow *all* take tens, on the grounds that all checks are dramatic, or dangerous, or distracting. The answer to that is not a FAQ. The answer is to bring it to leadership.
I happen to disagree with you and only allow dangers or distractions external to the check itself. But that is a seperate question that the non-FAQ declined to address, so that just winds up being (apparently intended) table variation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I am concerned, a lot of this is a non issue.
If GMs are abusing their discretion and eliminating all take 10s, the answer is to talk to your VO. If the problem is a VO, take it up with Mike Brock.
Mike Brock has repeatedly said on issues like this that he wants people to be able to use their judgement, and that if the do not have the judgement, they shouldn't be GMing.
An awful lot of this sounds like adversarial GMing, which is against the spirit of PFS.
That's not really fair though. Lots of GM's (including myself about 2 or 3 years ago) were taught that the pit or the chance of falling constituted distraction or immediate danger. So that's how we interpreted it. There is no language that directly disputes that interpretation.
So using that interpretation is not abuse of GM powers.
And lots of us were specifically taught that it wasn't.
So now we have two competing interpretations of the rules, and players never know which one they are going to get. Yet another thing to add to my list of "here's my rulings in advance" speech before the game.
|
|
I have several skill monkeys who spend a large amount of resources bumping skills into high bonuses specifically so that they can take 10 and succeed 80% of the time. They invest in this at the expense of other aspects of the game.A skill monkey should be able to succeed at LEAST that often rolling dice. If you have sklll focus thats a 15% increase in your chance of success. If you have a +5 magical dodad thats still a 25% chance increase of success. They still provide a benefit whether or not you take 10.
I have a low-level character with a +17 diplomacy. 27 beats the DC for most hostile creatures I run into; 24 beats the DC for none of them.
Sure, as soon as I have more skill ranks and enough fame/money to invest in a +5 dohickey (is there even one for Diplomacy? Highest I see is +3, and most of them don't stack), I'll be OK most of the time. But for the next several scenarios, this character might or might not work as intended, depending on the GM's whim.
Now my character is pointless, because it's all down to dice luck instead of my choices.Its not entirely luck, that's the entire point of skill bonuses, to shift the odds in your favor.
In the past week, I've rolled five 1s in a row in one session and rolled 4 or less for seven rolls in a row in another session. I can shift the odds all I want, but sometimes, the dice just turn on you. :-)
Side question:
If the point of not allowing take-10 is so that the GM can prevent auto-successes to increase the drama, can't use the same reasoning to say that natural 1s always automatically fail skill checks? A lot GMs (myself included) were taught this way, so how is this different from where we are with taking 10 now?
Generally if its important enough for me to bother making the check its because something is about to eat you. Therefore immediate danger, therefore no take 10.I am wondering what the GMing landscape looks like for taking 10 on Stealth checks.
So,taking 10 on Stealth, OK or not?
-Matt
What if I am stealthing through the Jungle and don't know that a beastie is also stalking me? Can i take 10 on my check in that circumstance?
Edit: do to don't
|
|
Sure, as soon as I have more skill ranks and enough fame/money to invest in a +5 dohickey (is there even one for Diplomacy?
Yup.
|
|
I have a low-level character with a +17 diplomacy. 27 beats the DC for most hostile creatures I run into; 24 beats the DC for none of them.Sure, as soon as I have more skill ranks and enough fame/money to invest in a +5 dohickey (is there even one for Diplomacy? Highest I see is +3, and most of them don't stack)
None that I know of. the circlet is the highest i know of at +3.
Edit: that ioun stone is a good example of what i'm talking about
+1 competence bonus:___400 Cost per plus: 400
+3 competence bonus: 3,000 Cost per plus: 1,000
+5 competence bonus 10,000 Cost per plus: 2,000
I'll be OK most of the time. But for the next several scenarios, this character might or might not work as intended, depending on the GM's whim.
while making every diplomacy check in the game by level 5 might be your intent, I don't think that its the games.
In the past week, I've rolled five 1s in a row in one session and rolled 4 or less for seven rolls in a row in another session. I can shift the odds all I want, but sometimes, the dice just turn on you. :-)
The dice gods giveth and the dice gods taketh away. They also take donations to get in on that shirt/folio racket.....
If the point of not allowing take-10 is so that the GM can prevent auto-successes to increase the drama, can't use the same reasoning to say that natural 1s always automatically fail skill checks? A lot GMs (myself included) were taught this way, so how is this different from where we are with taking 10 now?
1) Auto fail on a skill check isn't a rule: its a misapplied rule from attack rolls that explicitly don't apply to other checks.
2) Take 10 is is wonky dm's call land anyway and
3) It is exponentially harder to make a roll on a 1 than a 10. Your skill bonus stat bonus ranks and trained bonus should almost get you to a level appropriate dc. Someone with a skill 10 (or well, nine) points higher than yours must have done some crazy stuff to get there (and I know, because I have a druid that can cuddle hostile oozes on a roll of a 1)
You grab the low hanging fruit first: a circlet of persuasion. When you're still missing rolls you dip sorcerer for an arcane bond familiar and snag a thrush. Then you get really desperate and snag a feat on skill focus. The last +3 you get is usually as much of a sacrifice as the first +9.
So if someone can make a check on a roll of a 1 they've more than earned it. For the vast majority of PFS dcs a 10 is way, way to easy to stroll into.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
Sure, as soon as I have more skill ranks and enough fame/money to invest in a +5 dohickey (is there even one for Diplomacy? Highest I see is +3, and most of them don't stack), I'll be OK most of the time.Mulberry pentacle ioun stone. Seeker of Secrets.
For 14k, bracelet of bargaining, +5 bluff , diplo, sence motive, and a free detect lies to see if they plan on keeping their part of the deal.
For 20k, cloak of the diplomat, +5 diplo and sense motive, plus can shift reactions 3 steps instead of just 2.
Personally, I would vote the bracers
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I am concerned, a lot of this is a non issue.
If GMs are abusing their discretion and eliminating all take 10s, the answer is to talk to your VO. If the problem is a VO, take it up with Mike Brock.
Mike Brock has repeatedly said on issues like this that he wants people to be able to use their judgement, and that if the do not have the judgement, they shouldn't be GMing.
An awful lot of this sounds like adversarial GMing, which is against the spirit of PFS.
That's not really fair though. Lots of GM's (including myself about 2 or 3 years ago) were taught that the pit or the chance of falling constituted distraction or immediate danger. So that's how we interpreted it. There is no language that directly disputes that interpretation.
So using that interpretation is not abuse of GM powers.
I agree.
I was talking (specifically) about abuse.
"Well, if you fail the appraise check you won't realize this is the secondary prestige, so that is a danger, no take ten.
"Well, if you don't make this knowledge check, you won't get +2 initiative when the NPCs turn out to be secretly hostile, and try to eat you, danger, no T10, etc."
People were talking about GMs who dissallow *all* take tens, on the grounds that all checks are dramatic, or dangerous, or distracting. The answer to that is not a FAQ. The answer is to bring it to leadership.
I happen to disagree with you and only allow dangers or distractions external to the check itself. But that is a seperate question that the non-FAQ declined to address, so that just winds up being (apparently intended) table variation.
For the record I actually agree that the check should not represent distractiom or danger. I'm just saying I didn't always have that opinion based on how I was taught.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This non-FAQ is a rules change. It's not a non-FAQ at all. And, unfortunately, it's even less clear than before. (Except that it's clear they want not to be clear.)
The PDT has made serious errors in their FAQ declaraions in the past. It took a few years to get the "Spell-Like Abilities can fulfill prerequisites for prestige classes" error undone. Hopefully this one will get undone faster.
The fact is that in a home game, GMs are free to make whatever house rules they want. We really did not need a non-FAQ muddying the waters on Take 10 further. Home GMs can use their own judgement for whether or not take 10 is allowed-- they can modify whichever of the rules they want. In PFS, where we want to minimize table variation, some clarity (in particular, answering the question which was actually frequently asked, does the task itself serve as a distriaction) would have been far preferable to the mud we got.
I've seen some GMs who don't like the Take 10 rules argue that it always invalidates drama. This "non-FAQ" gives them all the ammunition to effectively rule out Take 10 for every single check. This is a mistake, unless the goal was to elimiate the Take 10 rules altogether (which I believe was not the goal).
The Take 10 rules are about character competence, not about game pacing. If you want a game pacing rule, put in that the GM can always say that the players just succeed at checks when it would be boring for them to have to check. (Many games, such as Fate, include exactly this text.) The designers who wrote the non-FAQ don't seem to understand this. Yes, I am saying that the PDT, at least as expressed in what they wrote, don't understand this piece of their own game; again, I see this as a mistake very much along the lines of the mistake of the FAQ that for a while allowed SLAs to be prerequisites for prestige classes.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, this is the fourth time I wrote this post, so I really hope it goes through.
A GM needs to justify (or at least be able to justify) why a given roll is an exception to the general rule that you can take ten. Any justification that eliminates take ten for all rolls, by definition fails this test. (No take ten is an exception, not the general rule)
Justifications that fail include:
I just don't like take ten.
If I am asking you for a roll it means you are in danger.
It is always more dramatic if you have to roll.
I don't like your character.
I want to see some PCs die tonight.
If the GM is unwilling or unable to justify it, or is trying to use the non-FAQ to eliminate take ten across the board, then that is bad GMing. and demonstrating a lack of judgement. Someone needs to take them aside and have a quiet talk, preferably a VO.
If the GM is unwilling or unable to change, they are a bad GM, and need to be removed from GMing PFS. First of all, anyone that adversarial, or that invested in *Drama!* I would not trust to run combats fairly. They are likely to abuse other things like when tactics are "invalidated" (Especially if the tactics have been set to drive down the CR of the encounter, but they decide it is more "dramatic" to let the NPC go full force.)
I know GMs are thin on the ground, but I really do not want to see the rules reduced to the level of a video game, just so we can hang on to bad GMs.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
BNW uses the example of someone reducing an investigation scenario to an afterthought.
Thanks, I meant to go back and address that and I got distracted.
Sadly I pretty much disagree with everything else you said. I think you are reading way too much into the FAQ and projecting your negative experiences onto the PDT team.
This is especially needed in pfs. Its ridiculously easy to get your skill up to a reasonable level, call "Take 10" and then skip an hour worth of investigation and die rolling to just get all the answers.
The take ten only replaces the die rolling, not the roleplaying.
Lets take the following scenario.
GM: you have arrived in town, you have a list of places malvolio hangs out, and the name of a couple of his friends. What do you do?
TT: I take ten.
GM: okay, at what?
TT: Knowledge local, I take ten, I have a 35.
GM: (looks at his notes. There isn't anything in there about a 35 knowledge local telling them where malvolio is hanging out that afternoon, in fact the GM notes states that whatever order they go in, Malvolio is in the third place they check, since the whole point is to introduce them to the town.) Okay, your knowledge local confirms the information you got earlier that those four places seem like likely places for him to hang out.
TT: Okay, lets go to the bar first.
GM: Okay, (describes the bar) what do you do.
TT: I take ten, diplomacy 40.
GM: Okay, but what are you doing?
TT: I'm just taking ten.
GM: Okay, you stand in the doorway, a beacon of cool, the men want to be you, and so do the women. Now what does your character say?
I think you get the point, the amount of roleplaying is exactly the same if TT kept saying "I roll a 13, diplomacy 33."
It isn't take ten that is the problem, it is players who want to sub in rolls for roleplay.
But, I hear you asking, what if the adventure *had* had a DC 35 knowledge local check that told you that malvolio was always at the mill at that time in the afternoon to hit on the millers daughter?
then that short cut was there as a reward for having a decent skill, and by trying to sabotage the players access to it, you are robbing them of a reward that was supposed to be there. Again, bad GMing.