|
Spun off from a conversation in the GM Discussion subforum.
TAKE 10
Most of the time, you attempt skill checks while under pressure or during times of great stress. Other times, the situation is more favorable, making success more certain.When you are not in immediate danger or distracted, the GM might allow you to take 10 on a skill check. When you take 10, you don’t roll a d20, but rather assume that you rolled a 10 on that die, then add the relevant skill modifiers. For many routine tasks, or for tasks you are particularly skilled at, taking 10 ensures success. If you still fail when taking 10, you might require more time and energy to succeed at that task (see Take 20).
Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted, and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story.
Emphasis mine. I really don't understand the rationale behind the restrictions on taking 10 here - if a PC is really good at what they do, only fails on a 1, and is in a situation where taking 10 would otherwise be allowed, why would a player be disallowed from taking 10? And why is that a good thing?
|
|
Let's start with the check in question with the serial numbers filed off to preserve the story for the SFS mod. The PCs need to come up with false identities to hide their affiliation with the Starfinders, which requires either a Computers or Disguise check. This check becomes the DC that security will need to penetrate their cover. They have the entirety of the journey to come up with these false credentials, and nothing happens to them en route, so they don't hit any of the disqualifiers except the "crucial and key" clause. The argument that some people are making is that, as this is a clandestine operation, the checks should be exempt from taking 10, as this is crucial and key to the scenario.
My issues are twofold. First, what denotes something being "crucial and key" to a scenario? And if something is "crucial and key," wouldn't it be in a hectic or distracting situation, which would naturally disqualify it? And second, why is this a good decision? If I have a character who is a master of disguise, and you have a supremely skilled hacker, why shouldn't we be able to take our time during the trip to work on our covers and take 10, especially if we don't know the DC we're trying to hit? Why is it more fun for me to roll a die and chance a 1, when I can do one of the things my character is good at and succeed? Why does disallowing a take 10 here promote a better play experience than allowing it?
I think I would respond that you're looking at it purely from your point of view as a player who is really good at something and doesn't want to fail. But stories with characters who never fail aren't very interesting or dramatic. This rule gives the GM discretion to ask for a roll at an important or dramatic juncture. I like it. I will say that this rule should perhaps be restricted in Organized Play, where GM discretion is often frowned upon (an explicit note in scenarios detailing occasions when the GM should invoke this rule would be helpful).
|
|
Hey, I agree. If there were no chance for failure, then why even bother playing things out - just skip to the end and tell me how awesome I was. Honestly mu majpr problem is that it denies a player the ability to make a choice for their character. If the rules for disarming a foe included verbiage about "you cannot do this if the plot demands the evil space knight has a death grip on his laser sword," I suspect most of us would agree that rule makes no sense and should be lifted.
Still, I'm willing to hear the opposing sidw here. Can you place that scenario in context? What is going on, what are the stakes, why can't I take 10, and why is relying on the randomness of a die better than just taking 10, especially if I don't know if taking 10 would guarantee success or not?
|
While this isn't the SFS forum, in SFS my general rule as a GM has been that if a success condition or credit condition (i.e. you lose credits if you fail to do a certain thing) I do not allow take 10, all other times outside of combat I will pretty much allow it.
Not to get into too big of spoiler territory but this covers situations like in one of the scenarios where you have a series of 6 checks, you're not particularly stressed although you are trying to impress someone, the DCs of these checks are in the low teens, it doesn't make sense story wise to allow people to take 10 there because it would be auto-success at one of the key success conditions for the scenario (its not the whole success condition but its one of those PCs must succeed at 2 of these 3 things with that being of them) so I do not allow it.
I think this also makes sense in the skill challenge context. Skill challenges are basically the non-combat equivalent of combat that allows more skill focused versus combat PCs to shine since you cannot take 10 in combat, I think it makes equal sense, and this key element of the story clause allows (although the stressed condition would potentially allow) for the disallowing of take 10 in this context.
I personally see no problem with taking 10 in the context of the opposed disguise/engineering checks in the OP as taking 10 in this context is not an auto success and you don't lose credits for triggering the fight where they spot you. Taking 10 does make it a little easier to not get detected because you minimize the problem of one person rolling poorly, but a nat 20 but any of the guards will likely still beat the take 10 even with bonuses.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who has been fighting for "take 10 rights" for players for years, I for one am not a fan of the rule change.
It essentially means players will never be able to take 10 except for the most mundane things.
I realize it seems like I'm going off topic here but please bare with me.
At least its not the houserule I see a lot in 3.5 and PF that 1's on skillchecks are automatic failures. At least with this rule if your mod is high enough, a 1 will not fail certain checks. In fact I think that's more applicable to what the rule is trying to avoid than the rule as written.
What do I mean? Well, I am under the impression that the intention of the rule(as others seem to be agreeing) is that things important to the plot shouldn't be 'everyday', i.e. something you can just assume you do. But saying "you can't take 10 on this" when the only thing stopping it IS plot, is telling the player that what's happening is plot important(even if they didn't know this).
As much as I hate saying it, the "nat 1 is an automatic failure" is better at creating dramatic tension/risk and preventing the player just doing something because they have a high mod, than this added line.
Example:
My character has a +15(Will be +17 next SFS session after buying a Boon and personal upgrade) in Piloting(without the ships own additional piloting mod). This means my minimum roll is 16(or 18). In Starship combat I can't take 10 on piloting checks because its combat, I am threatened or distracted! But depending on my ship's tier and what I want to do, I might not have to roll at all anyway.
Tier 1 ship? min DC: 10+1.5 = 11, max DC: 15+1.5 = 16
Tier 2 ship? min DC: 10+3 = 13, max DC: 15+3 = 18
My minimum roll(rolling a 1) means I just have perfect control over Tier 1 and 2 ships. I don't need to take 10, I just do something. This could make something plot related basically NULL harder than the no take 10 rule.
I'm not advocating for the "nat 1 autofail" rule, simply advocating against the plot related take 10 lock XD If this makes any sense. Sorry I rambled.
|
|
I see that as a reward for building a character who has hyperfocused their skills into a very narrow area. Playing that character very likely means you're not as good elsewhere, so when you get into a situation where your master-level skill is employed, you should feel like you're amazing.
In short - that's a feature, not a bug.
Not to get into too big of spoiler territory but this covers situations like in one of the scenarios where you have a series of 6 checks, you're not particularly stressed although you are trying to impress someone, the DCs of these checks are in the low teens, it doesn't make sense story wise to allow people to take 10 there because it would be auto-success at one of the key success conditions for the scenario (its not the whole success condition but its one of those PCs must succeed at 2 of these 3 things with that being of them) so I do not allow it.
There is a check for each character. That then sets the difficulty for several NPC checks. The probability is already badly against the characters (assuming that you roll for each NPC check) just because there are so many rolls it is highly unlikely that one of the NPCs will not roll well.
The GM still has the right to declare you can’t Take 10, but in the case of this particular scenario you are setting the difficulty much higher just because of the number of checks made against that result.
|
|
There is a check for each character. That then sets the difficulty for several NPC checks. The probability is already badly against the characters (assuming that you roll for each NPC check) just because there are so many rolls it is highly unlikely that one of the NPCs will not roll well.
The GM still has the right to declare you can’t Take 10, but in the case of this particular scenario you are setting the difficulty much higher just because of the number of checks made against that result.
The situation I was describing is actually a different scenario than the one you are describing.
The situation I was describing is actually a different scenario than the one you are describing.
Oh...well I guess you did a good job of not providing spoilers then!
|
|
Oh...well I guess you did a good job of not providing spoilers then!
The reason I wouldn't allow take 10 in the situation you're thinking about (the opposed roles) is not because of the key part of the story clause, it is instead the fact that the situation you're talking about is GM rolls and I wouldn't allow PCs to take 10 on rolls that are made by the GM where they're not supposed to know the results.
The thing I believe you're talking about are disguise checks, Disguise checks have this to say "The GM rolls the Disguise check in secret, so you’re not sure how good your disguise is."
The same clause appears in Engineering for disable device checks, but for some reason it is common to let people roll that as well, I believe as a form of player agency, but I do feel like dramatic tension is lessened if you know the results of your rolls that the game tells you should be secret (like knowing if you biffed your disable check on the trap.)
There is nothing in the text for Disguise or Computer that prevents Take 10. Same for Perception.
You can forbid it on dramatic basis. I do not believe you can forbid it just because the GM rolls it if someone says “I’m taking my time on this Disguise, please give me the Take 10 result.” If you allowed others to Aid, you would roll the Aid so people wouldn’t know the exact results.
I see two problems with preventing a character from taking a 10 on a roll simply because the results will have a big impact on the story:
(1) You're penalizing a character for having focused on the skill. Using the example of a locked door, if a character put the necessary skills into computer to be good enough to open the lock while taking a 10, that character should be rewarded for the choice. They passed up other opportunities to boost other skills, and if those choices pay off for this moment, great! If you don't allow that, you're retroactively punishing that character for skill/feat choices, and telling your players that their choices will always be second to the GM's intended story.
(2) The bigger problem is that the story requires that the locked door be challenging. The story shouldn't require the PCs to be stymied by a door until the right moment. The story should revolve around what's in the room beyond, so that if the PCs can hack the door, rappel through windows, teleport beyond, or crawl through Jefferies Tubes and reach it, the story advances. If they can't make one work, they try another.
For games with dramatic locked doors, you have to ask: What happens if they fail? If a PC has to roll and fails, does your story grind to a stop? What's the point in making them roll again and again?
|
|
You can forbid it on dramatic basis. I do not believe you can forbid it just because the GM rolls it if someone says “I’m taking my time on this Disguise, please give me the Take 10 result.” If you allowed others to Aid, you would roll the Aid so people wouldn’t know the exact results.
As you allude to, the whole point of the GM rolling is so that you don't know the result of the roll, if you take 10 you know the result of the roll, hence defeating the whole purpose of having the GM roll in the first place, I'm not sure how this could be the intended behavior. I also don't buy the argument that you don't know the true result because others can aid and you don't know if they successfully aided, especially since at a certain level aids become automatic.
The whole point of Take 10 is to be able to reliably do a skill you are good it.
Using a d20 doesn’t work well for skills where it is a single check, done! You have the same chance of doing a horrible job (rolled a 1) as your chance of doing an average job (rolled a 10). The only reason we even need a rule like Take 10 is the standard deviation on a d20 is so high relative to skill bonuses. You don’t have a rule for this in systems like GURPS.
Maybe you enjoy playing Inspector Clouseau, I don’t.
As you allude to, the whole point of the GM rolling is so that you don't know the result of the roll, if you take 10 you know the result of the roll, hence defeating the whole purpose of having the GM roll in the first place, I'm not sure how this could be the intended behavior. I also don't buy the argument that you don't know the true result because others can aid and you don't know if they successfully aided, especially since at a certain level aids become automatic.
Your position assumes that the PC knows the difficulty check for the roll they are making, and so the only unknown would be the PC's result.
Using the disguise example: A PC trained in disguise can take a 10 and know the character sat down in front of a mirror, pulled out the make-up kit, put on a wig, and affected the right walk, and put on the right clothes. They look a lot like the noble Princess who They can know that it'll probably fool any passersby who aren't really looking. They can know it might get past a city guard who stops them. They have no idea if it will fool the keen eyes of Archduchess Thirmbald. The reason is that the Player does not know what the Guards who stop them will roll on their checks, and has no idea if the Archduchess has a high perception and/or will roll well.
|
|
Your position assumes that the PC knows the difficulty check for the roll they are making, and so the only unknown would be the PC's result.
No it doesn't, it assumes the same thing the CRB assumes which is "The GM rolls the Disguise check in secret, so you’re not sure how good your disguise is."
If you're taking 10 you know exactly how good your disguise is, its 10+your modifier good.
I'm not sure why you all think it makes sense to allow someone to use a mechanic that ensures a PC knows how good their check is when the book specifically tells the GM to roll this check so that the PC doesn't know how good their check is.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always hated that rule. Apparently, nobody has heard of mirrors.
Here's my argument for taking 10 on Disguises:
If my vesk soldier whose Disguise bonus is a +0, then it's pretty obvious that taking 10 for me is a bad plan. If I have to do it, I will, but I'm basically rolling the die to let you know I'm probably going to fail this. On the off chance I roll extremely well, I'm not going to exceed 20. My buddy, the Disguise master, who sank a bunch of ranks into it, has a +15 to the check. If taking 10 is disallowed, then my vesk soldier has a tiny chance of doing better than the master of disguise. The idea that a master of disguise can take 10-30 minutes working up a disguise that isn't inherently better than someone with no training or ability is laughable, and doesn't make a great deal of narrative sense. Moreover, the idea that the master of disguise doesn't know he rolled a natural 1, and that the vesk rolled a natural 20, and that the vesk's disguise is better than his is equally laughable.
I think the question to ask here regarding Disguise is "why shouldn't the PCs know the DC they generated?" If the answer is "because then they'll just reroll until they get a 20," then disallow rerolls. "But that'll just encourage them to take 10!", I hear some people decry. To which I reply: "YES!!! You're catching on at last!"
|
|
The idea that a master of disguise can take 10-30 minutes working up a disguise that isn't inherently better than someone with no training or ability is laughable, and doesn't make a great deal of narrative sense.
This is literally true for every skill check you can attempt untrained in the game until very high levels if you're doing it within a turn instead of with 10-30 minutes prep.
I think the question to ask here regarding Disguise is "why shouldn't the PCs know the DC they generated?" If the answer is "because then they'll just reroll until they get a 20," then disallow rerolls. "But that'll just encourage them to take 10!", I hear some people decry. To which I reply: "YES!!! You're catching on at last!"
The answer is the rules tell them they don't get to. You might as well be asking why I can't use my strength score instead of my cha score when I intimidate people. Not knowing your disguise result makes the same amount of narrative sense as not allowing PCs to know the results of their engineering checks to disable a trap, clearly they could just use a perception to see if its disabled or not, but that would ruin the suspense just like knowing how good your disguise is would potentially ruin the suspense (even if the latter has an opposed check later on.)
|
|
So, here's an argument against the idea that taking 10 isn't allowed on Engineering tests to disable mechanical devices - it specifically calls out that taking 20 isn't allowed. If the idea were that the GM making the check specifically denies the ability to take 10 or 20, then why do the rules need to call out that taking 20 is specifically excluded from this?
And here's another weird bit - why is Disguise specifically called out that the GM has to make the roll in secret, so the player doesn't know if they succeeded or not, but Sense Motive is a player-rolled check, meaning they know how well they rolled against the NPC's Bluff check? What is the intrinsic difference in these two checks that one is hidden behind the GM screen, and the other is in the player's hands?
(1) You're penalizing a character for having focused on the skill.
How is this true? What you say after this does not in any way shape or form relate to punishing the player or character.
A character that has invested in a skill at a certain bonus is able to succeed on certain DCs X percent of the time. That percentage is increased with each skill investment.
If anything take 10 punishes characters who go completely gonzo for a skill. If a DC doesn't get much past 20 the guy with +19 is wasting his life if +10 will cut it.
Using the example of a locked door, if a character put the necessary skills into computer to be good enough to open the lock while taking a 10, that character should be rewarded for the choice.
All you are saying here is that the character should be able to take 10.
A character with +9 can open a dc 20 locked door in one shot half the time. At +15 they can do it 80% of the time
(2) The bigger problem is that the story requires that the locked door be challenging.
A locked door shouldn't USUALLY be a dramatic roll. When you're escpaing the zombie hoards or busting into the hostage room might be exceptions.
For games with dramatic locked doors, you have to ask: What happens if they fail? If a PC has to roll and fails, does your story grind to a stop? What's the point in making them roll again and again?
-Zombies get closer (braaaaiiiiiins)
-Hostage taker gets another perception check and either bolsters their defenses or well..
-The water rises higher
-The jacob marley door knocker taunts you a second time.
|
|
So, here's an argument against the idea that taking 10 isn't allowed on Engineering tests to disable mechanical devices - it specifically calls out that taking 20 isn't allowed. If the idea were that the GM making the check specifically denies the ability to take 10 or 20, then why do the rules need to call out that taking 20 is specifically excluded from this?
Sometimes Paizo writes superfluous rules, this is one such example, taking 20 was never an option for this roll as you can't take 20 if there's an adverse effect upon failure, specifically the take 20 rules state, "When you have plenty of time to devote to a skill’s task and that task has no adverse effect upon failure, the GM might rule that you can take 20 on that skill check."
Since they've chosen to write specifically about take 20 when no such writing was necessary, I don't think we can infer that since they didn't write about take 10 that it is allowed.
How is this true? What you say after this does not in any way shape or form relate to punishing the player or character.A character that has invested in a skill at a certain bonus is able to succeed on certain DCs X percent of the time. That percentage is increased with each skill investment.
If anything take 10 punishes characters who go completely gonzo for a skill. If a DC doesn't get much past 20 the guy with +19 is wasting his life if +10 will cut it.
If I made a character with the intent to be good enough to regularly succeed at DC 20 checks (outside of stressful situations) by taking a 10, and was then told that I could not take a 10 solely because the check in question was "important to the plot," I would absolutely feel cheated. I built a character to do something specific, and the GM took that away by fiat.
All you are saying here is that the character should be able to take 10.
That is correct.
A locked door shouldn't USUALLY be a dramatic roll. When you're escpaing the zombie hoards or busting into the hostage room might be exceptions.
. . .
-Zombies get closer (braaaaiiiiiins)
-Hostage taker gets another perception check and either bolsters their defenses or well..
-The water rises higher
-The jacob marley door knocker taunts you a second time.
In most of these instances, you've now changed the circumstances. Taking a 10 isn't allowed where there are tangible penalties for failure or other circumstances that add pressure. With the exception of the door knocker, I think all of these would create a scenario where taking a 10 is not possible under the rules.
The original question was whether a GM should allow a player to take 10 on a "crucial" check to the story; absent other circumstances the answer is "yes."
|
|
If I made a character with the intent to be good enough to regularly succeed at DC 20 checks (outside of stressful situations) by taking a 10, and was then told that I could not take a 10 solely because the check in question was "important to the plot," I would absolutely feel cheated. I built a character to do something specific, and the GM took that away by fiat.
A player is not the final arbiter of what a character is allowed to do, that's the role of the gm. You aren't cheated because you don't get to decide that your character CAN do something, that'salso why DCs aren't decided by PCs.
If I made a character with the intent to be good enough to regularly succeed at DC 20 checks (outside of stressful situations) by taking a 10, and was then told that I could not take a 10 solely because the check in question was "important to the plot," I would absolutely feel cheated. I built a character to do something specific, and the GM took that away by fiat.
Here here! Total agreement. I can't imagine someone not feeling cheated.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I made a character with the intent to be good enough to regularly succeed at DC 20 checks (outside of stressful situations) by taking a 10, and was then told that I could not take a 10 solely because the check in question was "important to the plot," I would absolutely feel cheated. I built a character to do something specific, and the GM took that away by fiat.
So what if you built a character to take 10 in stressful situations? Are you cheated by DM fiat because the DM won't let you do that?
No. You having unreasonable expectations of the game is not the DM robbing you. Take 10 is more clearly and more explicitly not the win button it was in pathfinder as the take 10 advocates wanted it to be ruled. If you want to be able to flawlessly and perfectly make a dc 20 without ever messing up you can be an opperative or you can get +19 to your skill.
That is correct.
So you admit your argument is bad? Because you're trying to make it seem like you're basing your desire to take 10 on something more than your desire to take 10. You should be able to do the thing is not an argument that you should be able to do the thing.
The original question was whether a GM should allow a player to take 10 on a "crucial" check to the story; absent other circumstances the answer is "yes."
No. Black and white clear as crystal plot relevant checks are not subject to take 10. The answer is clearly no per the rules.
"Unless you have an ability that states otherwise, you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter. Also, you can’t take 10 when the GM rules that a situation is too hectic or that you are distracted, and taking 10 is almost never an option for a check that requires some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story."
-Zombies get closer (braaaaiiiiiins)
Qualifies for: "you cannot take 10 during a combat encounter", "GM rules [...] that you are distracted", and "some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story."(Fail and you get combat)
-Hostage taker gets another perception check and either bolsters their defenses or well..
Qualifies for: "cannot take 10 during a combat encounter"(Try to tell me in a situation like that, most parties would not be operating in initiative) and "some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story."(Fail and a hostage dies)
-The water rises higher
Qualifies for: "GM rules [...] that you are distracted" and "some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story."(Fail and risk drowning)
-The jacob marley door knocker taunts you a second time.
I don't see the danger here at all. 'a second time' means its already taunted you, which has probably alerted all the necessary guards.
Things that also fall under the purview of this added rule and nothing else:
-Hacking a computer with no countermeasures when not in combat and the GM wants it to be hard(Why not just add a countermeasure or raise the DC?)
-Determining the structural weak points of a the bad guys building, while you stare at the blueprints 3 days before your intended heist
-Providing medical aid to a stable creature in a medical bay, so as to extract information the GM doesn't want you to have.
That's all I can think of right now. I'm sure there are more railroads that would benefit from the ability of the GM to say "No, you're not doing what I want, roll it"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And...we're back to the olympic athlete not being able to jump the 10-foot gap (that he could normally do in his sleep) because of the thousand foot drop "distracting" him.
Give me a break. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't make sense now. The take 10 rules should never have been changed in the way that they were.
Going to leave a lot of hurt feelings at a lot of tables, mark my words.
Competent jumpers should be able to jump 10 foot pits regardless of how deep they are, or whether or not the princess' life depended upon it.
I can't speak for others, but for me it's a matter of immersion. If I'm roleplaying an Olympic athlete, I don't want there to even be a 1% chance of falling into a small crack I'm jumping over, much less a 5% chance.
The fact that it is essentially left up to a wholly arbitrary decision, just rankles too.
Take 10 shouldn't be a thing to begin with, why are people so adverse to rolling dice in a dice based game?
Give me a break. It didn't make sense then. It doesn't make sense now. The take 10 rules should never have been changed in the way that they were.
I totally agree that Take 10 shouldn’t be a thing. Unfortunately, the method for making a skill check is a single d20 so the probability of getting a 10 and of getting a 1 are the same assuming a properly random die.
I much prefer systems like GURPS, Hero System, Fudge, etc where you have a bell curve (Gaussian Distribution) of results. The standard deviation is smaller and you are much more likely to roll average.
In d20 systems, without Take 10 something like climbing a ladder with multiple skill checks becomes a comedy of errors because of a single bad result.
And...we're back to the olympic athlete not being able to jump the 10-foot gap (that he could normally do in his sleep) because of the thousand foot drop "distracting" him.
If your jump check is a +8 you didn't qualify for the regular Olympics.
People missing easy jumps because there's a long fall is exactly what happens. People get scared, freak out, and freeze halfway through. One of the state parks where i worked has a beautiful blue lake surrounded by cliffs filled with 5 foot gaps, and 5-10 foot gaps filled with hikers who went to go accross and chickened out half way.
Same thing with a balance beam. Put it on the ground people walk across it no problem. Put it over a stream or a cliff? AHHHHH.. SPLASH.
I don't see the danger here at all. 'a second time' means its already taunted you, which has probably alerted all the necessary guards.
I'd call a door knocker coming to life and warning you of a visit by three spirits pretty )(_*##$#$ distracting.
And...we're back to the olympic athlete not being able to jump the 10-foot gap (that he could normally do in his sleep) because of the thousand foot drop "distracting" him.
If your jump check is a +8 you didn't qualify for the regular Olympics.
People missing easy jumps because there's a long fall is exactly what happens. People get scared, freak out, and freeze halfway through. One of the state parks where i worked has a beautiful blue lake surrounded by cliffs filled with 5 foot gaps, and 5-10 foot gaps filled with hikers who went to go accross and chickened out half way.
Same thing with a balance beam. Put it on the ground people walk across it no problem. Put it over a stream or a cliff? AHHHHH.. SPLASH.
So...you're essentially saying that GMs should have the power to arbitrarily declare when the PLAYERS' characters "get scared, freak out, and freeze halfway through?"
Sorry, that's just never going to sit well with me, nor should it for anyone else who values having their character be THEIR character.
Firstly, nobody is role playing an Olympic athlete. Unless, when you’re playing the game, your character is in the gym training, or on the field practicing all day every day, and then going home for a healthy dinner and 8 hours of sleep while the rest of the group is out adventuring.
Pathfinder and Starfinder characters represent extraordinarily fit and capable persons who - in the real world - would absolutely be on par with Olympic athletes when they reached 3rd level. This is heroic roleplaying; but I know plenty of characters who in their downtime do such things because it is in character.
And while I appreciate the player agency aspect, no matter how good you are at something, there’s always a chance of failure.
Do you crash a car one in twenty times you drive? Do you burn your food one in ten times you eat? I suspect not - and that's because the chance for failure is minimal.
But let's get bigger: Do fighter pilots crash their planes one in twenty times they land? Do astronauts die in one in twenty space walks? No. And even though those activities are some of the most dangerous known to humans, skilled professionals are able to minimize the risks so greatly that - when it does happen - it is newsworthy.
That's what taking 10 represents.
We roll dice, because dice are the arbiter of the actions we take.
We roll dice because the system is designed to randomize those events whose results are uncertain. Following your statement to it's logical conclusion, you reach the absurd games where players have to "roll to see if you stand up" and "roll to see if you walk to the door without falling."
So what if you built a character to take 10 in stressful situations? Are you cheated by DM fiat because the DM won't let you do that?
Again, you misunderstand the question. We are not arguing a character should be able to take 10 in a situation where there is something causing stress or distraction.
Take 10 is more clearly and more explicitly not the win button it was in pathfinder as the take 10 advocates wanted it to be ruled. If you want to be able to flawlessly and perfectly make a dc 20 without ever messing up you can be an opperative or you can get +19 to your skill.
You seem to think I am arguing a character should be able to take 10 whenever they want. That's not what's been said.
So you admit your argument is bad? Because you're trying to make it seem like you're basing your desire to take 10 on something more than your desire to take 10. You should be able to do the thing is not an argument that you should be able to do the thing.
Again, go back and read what I actually wrote.
No. Black and white clear as crystal plot relevant checks are not subject to take 10. The answer is clearly no per the rules.
And it's a bad rule. If the only reason a character shouldn't be able to take 10 is because the check is "relevant to the plot," it makes no sense.
Every check is relevant to the plot, because the characters are the ones driving the story and determining where it goes.
If you're saying that a character can't take 10 on checks which are relevant to the GM's preconceived notions of what the plot should be, we get back to my original second point: Character's shouldn't be punished because the GM thinks "this part should be harder."
Sorry, that's just never going to sit well with me, nor should it for anyone else who values having their character be THEIR character.
You cannot declare control over characters limbic system because it gives you a mechanical advantage.
Again, you misunderstand the question. We are not arguing a character should be able to take 10 in a situation where there is something causing stress or distraction.
People are arguing they should be able to leap over a 100 foot pit so yes, some people are arguing that they should be able to take 10 despite a stressful situation.
Again, go back and read what I actually wrote.
The problem is not what i read the problem is with what you wrote. You didn't advance an argument, you just accused people that disagreed with you of being bad dms. Your words were read. They were considered on their own merits, and responded to accordingly. If you don't like someone calling a self referencing tautology a bad argument then make a better one because self referencing tautologies are bad arguments.
And it's a bad rule.
Hello. Welcome to the rules forum. "That rule really doesn't mean X" is a different question than "what the heck change X"
If the only reason a character shouldn't be able to take 10 is because the check is "relevant to the plot," it makes no sense.
because....?
If starfinder were a reality simulator that would be correct, but its not. Its a cinematic story telling role playing game and it's more than a bit of a genre convention that things go hilariously sideways at the absolute worst possible time.
Every check is relevant to the plot, because the characters are the ones driving the story and determining where it goes.
Character makes breakfast. Good breakfast, bad breakfast, really not plot relevant. Move along, move along get to the story.
Character attempts to get starfinders onto chef Gorlacks cooking show because one of his knives has a gap era inscription on the tang , check is now plot relevant.
As a matter of reality, People don't perform the same way under pressure that they do in a relaxed setting. Hitting a baseball at the batting range and hitting a baseball while 100,000 fans are screaming is NOT the same things. Jumping over two pieces of tape 10 feet apart and a 10 foot gap over a thousand foot fall are not the same thing.
As a matter of story telling, things always go worst when you need it most. Your car suddenly won't start as soon as someone shows up with a machete and a hockey mask. The ONE time you mess up the power point presentation with some embarrassing college slides is the day the CEO decides to show up for work. (in some peoples cases real life seems to work this way...)
If you're saying that a character can't take 10 on checks which are relevant to the GM's preconceived notions of what the plot should be, we get back to my original second point: Character's shouldn't be punished because the GM thinks "this part should be harder."
preconceived, arbitrary, you're doing a lot of insulting of the ideas but very little debunking. Yes. The dm is supposed to have some idea of how hard the adventure is. Thats part of the job. Laying down pejorative terminology isn't going to make that go away.
Look at the alternative.
Either
1) you can take 10 and waltz through everything, why bother rolling
or
2) The DC is set so high that you can't take 10, which means if you're rolling that you are likely to fail. (and probably feel incompetent at not being able to do your job)
Which of those makes for a fun interactive evening?
OR, you make take 10 for truly menial tasks , and you can set some dcs the player make on an 8 , some on a 5, and that one check they need a 15 to pull off and add some variety to the evening.
Taking 10 allows you to do an average job at a check. It isn’t exceptional, and is far from your very best.
Taking 20 is a way to do your very best in exchange for retrying and taking longer.
As I alluded to above, the problem is that you have just as good a chance of doing your very best as you do of a more normal performance. Most people perform pretty consistently. If their average distance in a long jump is 16 feet, they aren’t going to have an equal chance of jumping 7 feet, 16 feet, or 26 feet!
If the skill checks used a Gaussian Distribution, you would pretty consistently jump the same distance. You couldn’t predict the exact distance, but you could figure out a distance that you can pretty reliably jump — in terms of probabilities something that is within 2 standard deviations.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I alluded to above, the problem is that you have just as good a chance of doing your very best as you do of a more normal performance. Most people perform pretty consistently. If their average distance in a long jump is 16 feet, they aren’t going to have an equal chance of jumping 7 feet, 16 feet, or 26 feet!
As a counterpoint to this, if someone's average jump is 16 feet they aren't always going to jump 16 feet, maybe the stumble a little bit, maybe the wind picks up, maybe they'll leg kicks out too much, but if you allow take 10 on a jump check the person is always going to jump 16 feet, because that's what the rules say they do with a certain check result and that's not realistic either.
As we already discussed, ultimately you have a problem not with take 10 but with the variance inherent in a d20 based system. But regardless, the only way we have in a d20 based system without house rules is thet variance, arguably larger than real life in a lot of instances, but still better than no variance at all.
Variance is part of it, but the shape of the probability curve is also a problem.
Making multiple checks that have no negative consequence gives too much, while making multiple checks that have a consequence for failure hurts too much. It distorts the system in strange ways including causing characters that are competent to look like total fools just because of a few bad dice rolls.
It isn't so bad in combat because of the large number of dice rolls. Since there are no critical failures a single bad roll isn't going to make things horrible. The same can not be said for things like disabling traps, climbing a steep cliff, or swimming a distance in deep water when you don't have a swim speed.
It really hurts if you are trying to do something like disguise a group or act as a group using Stealth to get past something. With six characters all having to roll, it is highly likely at least one of them will roll poorly.
I think this isn't really a rules question--the rule in Starfinder is clear. I'd suggest moving the thread to Advice or Homebrew.