| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Posting the relevant text below and then asking a question in the hopes of reduced table variation.
No FAQ Required:
The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.
With this sorta of clarification could we possibly see a PFS specific ruling regarding whether or not the task being preformed is counted as distracting enough to prevent the character from taking 10 on a check.
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.
|
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.
It also happens when party A goes to the dinner party with 5 Grobthnack Killstuffs and party B goes in with 4 Grabthacks and a Diplomancer.
Yes but player agency made that choice players choose what they are going to play for the most part. If the party that got sent failed to have anyone with a CHA higher than 10 that's their fault.
|
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.
And if you disagree with their interpretation of imminent danger or distraction, then just assume their is one. Like a heavy, stinky breezevor something.
The point is, when designers say, this rule was designed for table variation, we can't have Mike or John decide there isn't any.
Now I disagree with the design team. It would have been nice if they had defined the check itself minus any outside influences either imminent danger or not.
|
|
I think if GMs are disallowing people from taking 10, they should at least be prepared to tell the player what they are being endangered or distracted by.
Personally I can't remember the last time I had a problem with a GM disallowing a take 10 or take 20 when I thought it should have been permitted.
There is a fundamental difference between the amount of control a GM has in a home game and the amount a GM has in organized play. The role of GM is shared by the campaign coordinators and the person running the individual table. For them to set some guidelines for how it will work in PFS is not counter to the guidance of the PDT, no more than determining that certain feats or archetypes are not allowable is.
|
|
There is a fundamental difference between the amount of control a GM has in a home game and the amount a GM has in organized play. The role of GM is shared by the campaign coordinators and the person running the individual table. For them to set some guidelines for how it will work in PFS is not counter to the guidance of the PDT, no more than determining that certain feats or archetypes are not allowable is.
I disagree. PFS uses the rules of the game as often as possible.
And the campaign staff if PFS has made it a policy to not second guess the design team. In this case the design team has declared that table variation was intended for this rule.
For Mike or John or Linda to create a take ten rule for PFS, it creates a scenario where they are saying they know better than the design team.
Personally I think the design team is out of touch with the way take 10 is being interpreted and I'm almost 100% sure that they feel it us clear that the check itself is not imminent danger or distraction. But for whatever reason they haven't realized this is unclear.
So now we just deal with table variation. It really is no big deal.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The issue there Andrew is that was the specific question they sorta answered was if the action being preformed counted as a distraction. They left it wide open so now a GM could decide that he would rather see the drama of player failure even on non-heroic situations.
For Mike or John or Linda to create a take ten rule for PFS, it creates a scenario where they are saying they know better than the design team.
For general overruling of an FAQ/rule, I agree with you. In this case, the quoted section is the only one I disagree with. The way I read the (non?)ruling is that you know your game better than we do and therefore you should make the determination of what's right for your game. A generic PFS table has some aspects that are different from a generic Pathfinder table. If any of those line up with reasons to give guidelines, it makes sense to do so.
Broadly, my point is that because PFS gives the person running the table less latitude in general with respect to fudging, encounter modification, and other general adjudication tools, to do the same with this tool isn't usurping the design team. It's sharing the GM role.
Circumstances can be campaign-level, adventure-level, session-level, encounter-level, or check-level. The last three belong with the person at the table. If the campaign coordinators feel there's anything for the first two, it's reasonable for them to issue guidelines. I believe the expectation of consistency is more reasonable on a PFS table to table level is greater than from home game to home game (even barring house rules).
For the record, from my perspective, Mike coming on and saying that he wants to leave it as is (or remaining silent) is also reasonable. So is coming on with some PFS-level guidance.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for Take 10 haven't changed in 6 years. Why do they need to be anymore clarified now for PFS than they used to? What is so important now about Take 10 that we cannot trust our GMs to adjudicate it fairly and must insist that Mike make so sort of list? (A list I have no doubt will not satisfy most people no matter how detailed it is.) Are there character concepts and builds being invalidated by Take 10 table variation? Is the table variation on Take 10 suddenly making adventures more deadly?
This is a GM thing. Mike and John have much more important things to do.
I don't the actual question asked was that big of an issue. Does the task being preformed count as a distraction to preforming it. Period that's all people wanted to know. Without knowing that you can't accurately judge when you might be able to T10 at all from a players perspective.
And honestly I would have thought it was a no since one of the reasons listed to use T10 was to avoid failure. But if failure is an a show stopper then whats the point in having it? If its the direct consequences of failure then we still have a wide variance when it comes to if and when so much so that once again players simply by merit of their GM could have 2 drastically different experiences with the same scenario.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently "Take 10" threads have the Swarm subtype, and regeneration, because not even a response from the Design Team will kill them.
The point of the Take 10 option is to allow the GM to control the pacing and tension of the game, avoiding having the game bog down with unnecessary and pointless checks, but still calling for checks when the chance of failure leads to tension or drama, as well as when a series of checks would have a nonsensical result if all outcomes were exactly the Take 10 result. To that end, it would be counterproductive to attempt to make a strict ruling on what counts as “immediate danger and distracted” because that’s going to vary based on the pacing and dramatic needs of the moment. The very soul of the Take 10 rule is in the GM’s discretion of when it applies, and tying the GM’s hands, forcing them to allow Take 10 in some cases and disallow it in others would run counter to the point of the rule’s inclusion in the game. The rule is currently flexible enough to allow this, and it should maintain that flexibility.
I see absolutely no reason why PFS games shouldn't be run like this.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the point, that the design team wants GMs to feel free to adjudicate any variety of environmental and external effects on these checks as they see fit. They don't want them hamstrung by a decision the design team made.
However, I think that they should have clarified whether the check itself, barring any external stimuli, was considered imminent danger. Is the pit itself imminent danger? Or only the strong winds, the lava spitting up at you, etc. as the GM desires imminent danger.
That type of ruling would not have taken anything away from the GMs, and clarified the intent of Take 10.
|
|
I think that they should have clarified whether the check itself, barring any external stimuli, was considered imminent danger. Is the pit itself imminent danger?I cannot understand how the PDT or PFS staff cannot answer this question definitively.
Really?
Have you not read any of the other threads on Taking 10?
|
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.
Succeeding on every roll isn't an auto win. You still have to ask the right questions, and it still requires effort. Yes, the chance of failing the roll is gone, but often the chance of great success is gone as well. Take 10 is there so that people who have put in the effort to be good at a skill are actually allowed to be good at the skill, and not reliant on skill ranks AND good luck.
|
|
However, I think that they should have clarified whether the check itself, barring any external stimuli, was considered imminent danger. Is the pit itself imminent danger?I cannot understand how the PDT or PFS staff cannot answer this question definitively.
I'm not happy that the PDT did not answer it definitively. However, because they chose not to, it would not be appropriate for PFS staff to do so.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not happy that the PDT did not answer it definitively. However, because they chose not to, it would not be appropriate for PFS staff to do so.
Because the PDT make a bad decision, it's not appropriate for PFS staff to make a good one?
That seems counterintuitively Stalinist. I would think there would be someone who actually wants the correct decision to be made.
|
|
The rules for Take 10 haven't changed. The PDT did not change the rules for Take 10. GMs have no more right to deny Take 10 than they did before the non-FAQ.
This is true. But where table variation will occur, is when a GM interprets the chance of failing as immediate danger or distraction and thus doesn't allow Take 10 on a climb check or acrobatics check to jump a pit.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The rules for Take 10 haven't changed. The PDT did not change the rules for Take 10. GMs have no more right to deny Take 10 than they did before the non-FAQ.
No, because GM's right to make stupid, un-fun decisions is limitless, and the non-FAQ didn't limit it.
However, they also explicitly outlined a not-fun justification for making stupid, un-fun decisions upon which GMs can and will rely. So while their right hasn't changed, their confidence in their misplaced style has greatly increased.
|
OK, I've mostly stayed out of the take 10 threads but I'm going to do one of my patented "ask yourself a question" posts. Since the people who dislike the Design Team post seem to fall into two camps I have a pair of questions. The camps (as I see them) are:
1) "It's too easy for players to invalidate challenges by taking 10."
2) "It's not fair that a GM can arbitrarily declare something as distracting and make something (I think is) routine into a chance of catastrophe."
1) Do you really think that player who builds characters to overcome a difficult challenge by taking 10 is not going to find another way of totally owning challenges?
2) Do you really think that GM is not going to find a different way to put characters in a predicament you think is more deadly than the scenario writer intended?"
|
|
Kevin,
I'm more concerned with changing the entire scope of encounters, or making them pedantic and boring. Scenarios are designed to take 4 to 5 hours, and if climbing a cliff ends up taking 2 hours because the character who has a -2 climb can't roll for crap and literally can't get up the knotted rope against a wall. Obstacles like that are meant to test the preparedness and creativity of a team of adventurers. Not be a severe danger or impediment to completing the scenario on time.
But if a GM determines that the chance of falling precludes taking 10 on a climb check, you have all kinds of potential repercussions that they may not have considered.
Here are two examples I have:
You are essentially making it virtually impossible to succeed at the ravine, for even at very well prepared party, if a GM decides that Take 10 cannot be used on climb checks.
You are making it virtually impossible to ensure that the heavily armored characters are actually 100 feet up the cliff, as designed, when the Eriynese attacks.
|
|
No it is not Nefreet. Only the Take 10 rules use the concept of immediate danger or distraction. I'm all for a discussion on the topic, but at least discuss it in good faith.Does the pit, itself, represent an "immediate danger" or a distraction as contemplated by the rules?That would be a specific ruling about Acrobatics, not Take 10.
Using the specific example of a pit representing immediate danger asks a specific question surrounding Taking 10 on Acrobatics. An answer to that specific question would not solve any of the other myriad examples of Taking 10 on different skills, or even of Taking 10 on Acrobatics in every instance.
Using your words, to suggest otherwise is not arguing "in good faith".
My other earlier comment was meant to show you that many GMs rule the minutiae of Taking 10 corner cases differently, so leaving the answer open-ended (as the PDT did) is truly the only possible answer.
And, now that they've made a ruling, let's nip this in the bud. Unless you want me reminding you for the next 700 posts that you're wrong (I have experience now!).
|
For Mike or John or Linda to create a take ten rule for PFS, it creates a scenario where they are saying they know better than the design team.
I think PFS Campaign management and the Design Team have different objectives in mind when it comes to the rule set.
For instance, table variation is a very touchy problem in PFS that often turns into needlessly heated arguments. Table variation for a home game (which is clearly what Pathfinder Design Team writes their content for, see any "GM Discretion" rule) is a complete non-issue. In fact, the GM in a home brew doesn't even need to use the rules in the book and can modify them at will because "who cares."
So in the context of adjusting rules to function sanely in a global campaign where at least some degree of consistency is desired, I would say the PFS Campaign Management at the very least is more concerned about table variation than the Design Team and is likely more adept at identifying and dealing with it. Though this is not to claim that PFS Campaign Management is terribly worried about table variation in general.
That being said, I'm not sure if Take 10 is such an issue that campaign management is particularly worried about. I mean, really, what prohibiting take 10 because it "trivializes encounters" says is "I know you have at least a 55% chance to succeed, but I really want to squeeze that last 0%-45% to see you fail."
Sometimes difficulty is important in a game. Other times its unnecessarily irritating. How would PFS Campaign Management practically issue a ruling exactly? There are tons of possible circumstances where the greater population of PFS would see "no take 10" as appropriate, and still there are many others that would see it as fine and not care.
Does "use responsibly" or "be reasonable" really not work?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the campaign staff if PFS has made it a policy to not second guess the design team. In this case the design team has declared that table variation was intended for this rule.
There are notable exceptions to this policy that don't particularly make sense already, like Racial Heritage not applying to the entire ARG when a FAQ exists that says it should.
Regarding Take 10 in particular, I agree with your assessment.