Am I the only one who finds that heavy use of the Take 10 mechanic, resulting in frequent autosuccesses, is kind of boring?
I do think there are some things that are just so easy that they should automatically succeed. You don't need to make a check to jump across a three foot puddle for example (OK, maybe halflings, gnomes and feeble characters do). But in those cases, no roll should even be made and it should just be described narratively.
I also have no problem with the Take 20 rule, as use of that is not applicable to many skills and is dependent on having time to concentrate on the task.
I'm talking about the times when a character doesn't have enough skill points to succeed automatically by rolling the dice, but by using the Take 10 mechanic can eliminate any chance of failure.
I kind of think that the possibility of losing or failure is an essential part of any game, and adds spice. The Take 10 mechanic, particularly combined with known DCs, in my mind, makes it less of a game and more of a math/character building exercise.
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way.
|
I don't see it taking the game out of anything, I see it as a very useful tool for speeding up the game so that it continues at a good pace.
It's there to save time from having to make little checks on things like climbing up a ladder, swimming across a calm stream and things like that. It's perfect for things that you should technically make checks on but if your not in any kind of rush it'd be ridiculous to fail at.
Also don't forget that you can “take 10” on a check only when you are not threatened or distracted too, so it's not a fail safe for everything.
cibet has something there. Try fudging around the DC's a little and see if your players take 10 nearly as much. Taking 10 is really there for passing things that you really ought to pass. For example, climbing a long knotted rope. Average people can easily climb that, despite only having a climb check of ~+2-3.
I don't see it taking the game out of anything, I see it as a very useful tool for speeding up the game so that it continues at a good pace.
It's there to save time from having to make little checks on things like climbing up a ladder, swimming across a calm stream and things like that. It's perfect for things that you should technically make checks on but if your not in any kind of rush it'd be ridiculous to fail at.
Also don't forget that you can “take 10” on a check only when you are not threatened or distracted too, so it's not a fail safe for everything.
The examples you give fall in the category of things where you shouldn't even be making a skill check, because there is literally no chance of failure.
I'm thinking more of things like social skill checks or Magical Crafting, when there is no threat or distraction, the DC is frequently known, and Taking 10 easily removes all chance of failure.
Am I the only one who finds that heavy use of the Take 10 mechanic, resulting in frequent autosuccesses, is kind of boring?
I do think there are some things that are just so easy that they should automatically succeed. You don't need to make a check to jump across a three foot puddle for example (OK, maybe halflings, gnomes and feeble characters do). But in those cases, no roll should even be made and it should just be described narratively.
I also have no problem with the Take 20 rule, as use of that is not applicable to many skills and is dependent on having time to concentrate on the task.
I'm talking about the times when a character doesn't have enough skill points to succeed automatically by rolling the dice, but by using the Take 10 mechanic can eliminate any chance of failure.
I kind of think that the possibility of losing or failure is an essential part of any game, and adds spice. The Take 10 mechanic, particularly combined with known DCs, in my mind, makes it less of a game and more of a math/character building exercise.
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way.
The problem seems to be that your players seem to know the DC of the task at hand. If the players do not know the DC of the task at hand taking 10 is still a risk to them since they DO NOT know if getting a "10" will fail but getting an "11" will succeed.
Keep the DC a secret and let the players decide if they want to risk taking 10 or not. That's how I've always used it. Taking 10 should always be an option for the players but not always a success.
I agree completely with keeping the DC a secret from your players as much as possible. Of course, that is hard to do when every player has a copy of the Core Rulebook sitting right there giving the DC for many of the things they are attempting.
Of course you can (and I regularly do) alter those DCs by applying appropriate situational modifiers, but there aren't always appropriate situational modifiers to apply. And, of course, there are a fair number of players on these boards who would accuse you of being a bad GM if you alter the written DCs, calling it DM dickery or GM fiat or some such thing.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I am a fan of the "take 10" rules because, as others have stated, it eliminates "silly failures."
Bear in mind that take 10 cannot be used in combat or during high-stress conditions (unless you're a high-level rogue with Skill Mastery), so most of the time, taking 10 is used to accomplish something suitably non-dramatic. I, for one, am all about glossing over the mundane and getting right to the meat of the adventure at hand.
If the barbarian has a +20 jump check and needs to clear a 10 foot gap with a running start, he shouldn't need to roll for that. The party can trust in his ability, he takes 10, clears the gap, and provides aid to the other party members (who probably CAN'T take 10 for an auto-success) to clear the obstacle.
Also bear in mind that a natural 1 does not auto-fail on a skill check either. In situations where a character's bonus is so high that they are literally incapable of failure (i.e. a natural 1 + their bonuses would still meet or exceed the DC), I waive the roll entirely (why bother?) and keep moving. I see taking 10 as just being a slightly upgraded version of this principle.
cibet has something there. Try fudging around the DC's a little and see if your players take 10 nearly as much. Taking 10 is really there for passing things that you really ought to pass. For example, climbing a long knotted rope. Average people can easily climb that, despite only having a climb check of ~+2-3.
I agree with your interpretation of the intent. However, with known DCs for many things listed in the book, and optimizing players, it's pretty easy to get to autosuccess in a lot of skills that people shouldn't be automatically successful at.
I am a fan of the "take 10" rules because, as others have stated, it eliminates "silly failures."
Bear in mind that take 10 cannot be used in combat or during high-stress conditions (unless you're a high-level rogue with Skill Mastery), so most of the time, taking 10 is used to accomplish something suitably non-dramatic. I, for one, am all about glossing over the mundane and getting right to the meat of the adventure at hand.
If the barbarian has a +20 jump check and needs to clear a 10 foot gap with a running start, he shouldn't need to roll for that. The party can trust in his ability, he takes 10, clears the gap, and provides aid to the other party members (who probably CAN'T take 10 for an auto-success) to clear the obstacle.
Also bear in mind that a natural 1 does not auto-fail on a skill check either. In situations where a character's bonus is so high that they are literally incapable of failure (i.e. a natural 1 + their bonuses would still meet or exceed the DC), I waive the roll entirely (why bother?) and keep moving. I see taking 10 as just being a slightly upgraded version of this principle.
I see where you are coming from, but don't necessarily agree that all failures of this sort are "silly". I don't think it is the spirit of the game that the only time you can possibly fail in your quest is in the final battle with the BBEG.
I agree with wiving the roll if there are enough skill points to succeed no matter what is rolled. I don't agree that taking 10 is only a slightly upgraded version of that. It is possible, taking 10, to autosucceed at something that if you rolled you would succeed only 45% of the time at. That's not slightly upgraded. That's moving from a Hyundai to a Porsche.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I see where you are coming from, but don't necessarily agree that all failures of this sort are "silly". I don't think it is the spirit of the game that the only time you can possibly fail in your quest is in the final battle with the BBEG.
I agree with wiving the roll if there are enough skill points to succeed no matter what is rolled. I don't agree that taking 10 is only a slightly upgraded version of that. It is possible, taking 10, to autosucceed at something that if you rolled you would succeed only 45% of the time at. That's not slightly upgraded. That's moving from a Hyundai to a Porsche.
Well, my counter is this then: What rolls are they making with the "take 10" rules that are bothering you? What sort of "auto-successes" are you encountering that you feel is hurting the gameplay?
I think this falls under the "the characters are heroes" trope. As heroes, routine actions shouldn't be nit-picked over. If they can make the skill with a "Take 10", then it's a routine action.I kind of think that the possibility of losing or failure is an essential part of any game, and adds spice. The Take 10 mechanic, particularly combined with known DCs, in my mind, makes it less of a game and more of a math/character building exercise.
Just curious if anyone else feels the same way.
How do you define "routine action"? Recognizing that mechanically, anything you might otherwise have up to a 45% chance of failing at is now an autosuccess using Take 10, so long as you are not in combat or an otherwise stressful situation.
Play with books closed. If there's a rules debate, make a ruling that's good until the session ends "For now the DC is going to be X". Discuss between sessions. If your ruling is incorrect, bring up the correct ruling next session "Bill was right, the DC is actually Y".
|
How do you define "routine action"? Recognizing that mechanically, anything you might otherwise have up to a 45% chance of failing at is now an autosuccess using Take 10, so long as you are not in combat or an otherwise stressful situation.
Or, to restate it, you can always succeed in routine actions when not stressed. When stressed, you only succeed 45% of the time.
|
|
I agree with your interpretation of the intent. However, with known DCs for many things listed in the book, and optimizing players, it's pretty easy to get to autosuccess in a lot of skills that people shouldn't be automatically successful at.
Care to give us some examples so perhaps we can help you out with that?
It's there to save time from having to make little checks on things like climbing up a ladder, swimming across a calm stream and things like that. It's perfect for things that you should technically make checks on but if your not in any kind of rush it'd be ridiculous to fail at.The examples you give fall in the category of things where you shouldn't even be making a skill check, because there is literally no chance of failure.
There's no chance of failure under normal circumstances. If I were being chased by an angry bear, I might be a touch distracted as I tried to scramble up a ladder, though!
Experiment: Use a Take 5 rule instead of Take 10.
Well, my counter is this then: What rolls are they making with the "take 10" rules that are bothering you? What sort of "auto-successes" are you encountering that you feel is hurting the gameplay?I see where you are coming from, but don't necessarily agree that all failures of this sort are "silly". I don't think it is the spirit of the game that the only time you can possibly fail in your quest is in the final battle with the BBEG.
I agree with wiving the roll if there are enough skill points to succeed no matter what is rolled. I don't agree that taking 10 is only a slightly upgraded version of that. It is possible, taking 10, to autosucceed at something that if you rolled you would succeed only 45% of the time at. That's not slightly upgraded. That's moving from a Hyundai to a Porsche.
I could come up with a lot of examples, but will settle for just two:
Diplomacy - Reasonably competent 5th level Bard with 16 Charisma wants to convince somebody Indifferent to do him a favor. Because the player has read his Core Rulebook and knows the target is almost certainly between 15 and 20, and since he has +11 on his skill checks, he knows he can autosucceed with Take 10. If he were to roll, he would have only a 60-85% chance to succeed in this, but with Take 10 it is an autosuccess.
Climb - Reasonably competent 5th level Rogue with an 18 Dex (+12 Climb skill) wants to climb a typical dungeon wall. He knows it is DC 20 because the Core Rulebook says so, and thus by using Take 10 he can change a 35% chance of failure into 0%. Spiderman, eat your heart out - you aren't so special.
Edit - Whoops, forgot momentarily that Climb is Strength based, so give that rogue a 14 Str, which would give him +10 on his Climb Skill. Makes it worse. He is now able to convert 45% fail to autosucceed.
im gming a bunch of converted 3.5 modules and the party rogue has the spot traps I'n 10 feet thing and he takes ten. I'n 3 modules there has been all of 1 trap he did not spot automatically.
however the biggest thing isinotice slot of older players have problems adjusting to take ten and end ep failing rolls they should have passed because they roll without thinking about it.
it ,ostly as a gm seems to remove certain things as a challenge.
Play with books closed. If there's a rules debate, make a ruling that's good until the session ends "For now the DC is going to be X". Discuss between sessions. If your ruling is incorrect, bring up the correct ruling next session "Bill was right, the DC is actually Y".
Interesting thought, but I doubt most players would go for it. I do tell my players that they should never count on th DCs in the books being the ones that will use because I do make heavy use of situational modifiers.
Experiment: Use a Take 5 rule instead of Take 10.
I might try that. just as an experiment.
im gming a bunch of converted 3.5 modules and the party rogue has the spot traps I'n 10 feet thing and he takes ten. I'n 3 modules there has been all of 1 trap he did not spot automatically.
however the biggest thing isinotice slot of older players have problems adjusting to take ten and end ep failing rolls they should have passed because they roll without thinking about it.
it ,ostly as a gm seems to remove certain things as a challenge.
This is what I was looking to see if anyone else has experienced.
Glad to know I'm not completely alone.
I also have old-school players that forget to take 10 many times it would be advantageous.
im gming a bunch of converted 3.5 modules and the party rogue has the spot traps I'n 10 feet thing and he takes ten. I'n 3 modules there has been all of 1 trap he did not spot automatically.
I will confess to being guilty of this...twice. I have a couple of characters with pumped-up Perception checks and I've been known to take 10 on checking for traps. I find traps irritating and boring in general; if I weren't allowed to take 10, I'd probably just try to scrounge up another +9 in bonuses and then "take 1". :-/
I'm going to agree with the majority of posters and say that I think that it makes a lot of sense and prevents the opposite of what you're talking about. I think someone who is well trained (the bard, the rogue, whatever) shouldn't have a 30% chance of failure despite the fact that he's now got 8 skill ranks, plus a high attribute, etc.
You're looking at it as avoiding a chance of failure - and it is -- but that's the chance of failure when the person's distracted by something else. (Eg - Climb the wall when the bad guys are shooting arrows at him, rather than just looking for the next hand hold).
Basically, the belief is that if you're able to pay attention and not be distracted, you should be able to do a "good enough" job that is less than the average of your ability.
(For example, if I'm not distracted, I can guarantee that I can write a computer program of up to complexity level that'll work. It may not be elegant, it may not be optimal, it may even have a memory leak that means it can't scale -- but it'll do the job it needs to. Now if someone's running in and out of my office asking me questions, well, I suspect that said program may not compile quite so cleanly.)
At the same time, you're deliberately half-assing it (which is why it's take 10 and not take 11, 15 or 20) - which means you're also not going to do a spectacular job - by avoiding doing something stupid, you're also avoiding doing something clever.
Play with books closed. If there's a rules debate, make a ruling that's good until the session ends "For now the DC is going to be X". Discuss between sessions. If your ruling is incorrect, bring up the correct ruling next session "Bill was right, the DC is actually Y".Interesting thought, but I doubt most players would go for it. I do tell my players that they should never count on th DCs in the books being the ones that will use because I do make heavy use of situational modifiers.
I originally started running my game closed book due to rules arguments bogging things down. The games that I play in are currently open book, whereas the game that I run is closed book. Twice as much gets done in half the time when things are closed book. It just has the added benefit of making things slightly harder to meta-game. Really once you set the tone of on-the-fly rulings, the players will simply keep the books closed unless they need to reference something for their individual character (Casters should know what their spells do or have them written down separately).
I'm going to agree with the majority of posters and say that I think that it makes a lot of sense and prevents the opposite of what you're talking about. I think someone who is well trained (the bard, the rogue, whatever) shouldn't have a 30% chance of failure despite the fact that he's now got 8 skill ranks, plus a high attribute, etc.
You're looking at it as avoiding a chance of failure - and it is -- but that's the chance of failure when the person's distracted by something else. (Eg - Climb the wall when the bad guys are shooting arrows at him, rather than just looking for the next hand hold).
Basically, the belief is that if you're able to pay attention and not be distracted, you should be able to do a "good enough" job that is less than the average of your ability.
(For example, if I'm not distracted, I can guarantee that I can write a computer program of up to complexity level that'll work. It may not be elegant, it may not be optimal, it may even have a memory leak that means it can't scale -- but it'll do the job it needs to. Now if someone's running in and out of my office asking me questions, well, I suspect that said program may not compile quite so cleanly.)
At the same time, you're deliberately half-assing it (which is why it's take 10 and not take 11, 15 or 20) - which means you're also not going to do a spectacular job - by avoiding doing something stupid, you're also avoiding doing something clever.
If I read you correctly, you are arguing that it is more fun and more heroic to be able to automatically succeed at some things.
I acknowledge it's just a matter of opinion, but I disagree. I find it more fun when there is more chance of failure, and find characters to be more heroic when they are triumphing over the odds, rather than avoiding the odds altogether.
I'm going to agree with the majority of posters and say that I think that it makes a lot of sense and prevents the opposite of what you're talking about. I think someone who is well trained (the bard, the rogue, whatever) shouldn't have a 30% chance of failure despite the fact that he's now got 8 skill ranks, plus a high attribute, etc.
You're looking at it as avoiding a chance of failure - and it is -- but that's the chance of failure when the person's distracted by something else. (Eg - Climb the wall when the bad guys are shooting arrows at him, rather than just looking for the next hand hold).
Basically, the belief is that if you're able to pay attention and not be distracted, you should be able to do a "good enough" job that is less than the average of your ability.
(For example, if I'm not distracted, I can guarantee that I can write a computer program of up to complexity level that'll work. It may not be elegant, it may not be optimal, it may even have a memory leak that means it can't scale -- but it'll do the job it needs to. Now if someone's running in and out of my office asking me questions, well, I suspect that said program may not compile quite so cleanly.)
At the same time, you're deliberately half-assing it (which is why it's take 10 and not take 11, 15 or 20) - which means you're also not going to do a spectacular job - by avoiding doing something stupid, you're also avoiding doing something clever.
If I read you correctly, you are arguing that it is more fun and more heroic to be able to automatically succeed at some things.
I acknowledge it's just a matter of opinion, but I disagree. I find it more fun when there is more chance of failure, and find characters to be more heroic when they are triumphing over the odds, rather than avoiding the odds altogether.
I think the bigger issue at hand is that it is unfun to fail at fairly easy things. How many people have fun failing that save where only a 1 would fail?
I originally started running my game closed book due to rules arguments bogging things down. The games that I play in are currently open book, whereas the game that I run is closed book. Twice as much gets done in half the time when things are closed book. It just has the added benefit of making things slightly harder to meta-game. Really once you set the tone of on-the-fly rulings, the players will simply keep the books closed unless they need to reference something for their individual character (Casters should know what their spells do or have them written down separately).Play with books closed. If there's a rules debate, make a ruling that's good until the session ends "For now the DC is going to be X". Discuss between sessions. If your ruling is incorrect, bring up the correct ruling next session "Bill was right, the DC is actually Y".Interesting thought, but I doubt most players would go for it. I do tell my players that they should never count on th DCs in the books being the ones that will use because I do make heavy use of situational modifiers.
Whether you know it or not, that's very old school. I get the impression many players today would not accept that style, and aren't comfortable with that level of GM discretion. You're blessed to have a table that does.
I'm going to agree with the majority of posters and say that I think that it makes a lot of sense and prevents the opposite of what you're talking about. I think someone who is well trained (the bard, the rogue, whatever) shouldn't have a 30% chance of failure despite the fact that he's now got 8 skill ranks, plus a high attribute, etc.
You're looking at it as avoiding a chance of failure - and it is -- but that's the chance of failure when the person's distracted by something else. (Eg - Climb the wall when the bad guys are shooting arrows at him, rather than just looking for the next hand hold).
Basically, the belief is that if you're able to pay attention and not be distracted, you should be able to do a "good enough" job that is less than the average of your ability.
(For example, if I'm not distracted, I can guarantee that I can write a computer program of up to complexity level that'll work. It may not be elegant, it may not be optimal, it may even have a memory leak that means it can't scale -- but it'll do the job it needs to. Now if someone's running in and out of my office asking me questions, well, I suspect that said program may not compile quite so cleanly.)
At the same time, you're deliberately half-assing it (which is why it's take 10 and not take 11, 15 or 20) - which means you're also not going to do a spectacular job - by avoiding doing something stupid, you're also avoiding doing something clever.
If I read you correctly, you are arguing that it is more fun and more heroic to be able to automatically succeed at some things.
I acknowledge it's just a matter of opinion, but I disagree. I find it more fun when there is more chance of failure, and find characters to be more heroic when they are triumphing over the odds, rather than avoiding the odds altogether.
Have you ever read a story which went into detail on the hero of the story making his bed, doing the laundry, washing the dishes, etc.?
I...
I guess it depends on what you consider routine. Look at the examples I posted above. Is use of Diplomacy to convince a key NPC to give you something necessary for your quest routine? Is climbing a dungeon wall to get to a passage above routine? Or using Mojorat's example, is finding traps on the move in a dungeon routine? All of these very possible, even easy, using Take 10 and standard Core Rulebook DCs.
I'll give you washing the dishes, doing the laundry or making the bed (although my kids still can't manage it), but these other things seem like key parts of the adventure to me.
im gming a bunch of converted 3.5 modules and the party rogue has the spot traps I'n 10 feet thing and he takes ten. I'n 3 modules there has been all of 1 trap he did not spot automatically.I will confess to being guilty of this...twice. I have a couple of characters with pumped-up Perception checks and I've been known to take 10 on checking for traps. I find traps irritating and boring in general; if I weren't allowed to take 10, I'd probably just try to scrounge up another +9 in bonuses and then "take 1". :-/
oh I agree, to be dishonest as a gm the more interesting traps ( you know the ones players collectively wince when you tell the rogue how it works. I'd like to see one tripped up sometimes. but thematically I find parties standing around 40 minutes searching a hallway a bit off.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I could come up with a lot of examples, but will settle for just two:
Diplomacy - Reasonably competent 5th level Bard with 16 Charisma wants to convince somebody Indifferent to do him a favor. Because the player has read his Core Rulebook and knows the target is almost certainly between 15 and 20, and since he has +11 on his skill checks, he knows he can autosucceed with Take 10. If he were to roll, he would have only a 60-85% chance to succeed in this, but with Take 10 it is an autosuccess.
Climb - Reasonably competent 5th level Rogue with an 18 Dex (+12 Climb skill) wants to climb a typical dungeon wall. He knows it is DC 20 because the Core Rulebook says so, and thus by using Take 10 he can change a 35% chance of failure into 0%. Spiderman, eat your heart out - you aren't so special.
Edit - Whoops, forgot momentarily that Climb is Strength based, so give that rogue a 14 Str, which would give him +10 on his Climb Skill. Makes it worse. He is now able to convert 45% fail to autosucceed.
Okay, with those two examples - lets say you throw out the "take 10" rules and make your players roll. Lets say they fail those rolls. What happens?
In the bard's case, the indifferent person doesn't do him a favor, so the bard asks another person. And another. And another. Eventually, he'll roll high enough. All you've done is drag the game out. (To be fair, personally I hate the Diplomacy rules and I don't use the static DCs in the book at all.)
In the rogue's case, he doesn't climb the wall. So he tries again. And again. And eventually he succeeds. If the wall is more than 20' tall, then he can only take 10 on the first check. Because once he gets higher than 20', he is now "in danger" (because falling will hurt him) and he can no longer use the take 10 rules. Note that in order to actually FALL during a climb check, you have to fail by 5 or more. Failing by less than 5 means you just make no progress. Again, forcing rolls here is just bogging the game down.
Got any others?
I think the bigger issue at hand is that it is unfun to fail at fairly easy things. How many people have fun failing that save where only a 1 would...
I think a lot of people agree with you, and that is why the rule was invented.
I just happen to be someone who doesn't and finds the possibility of failure, even if it is small, to add fun to the game. I just wanted to know if anyone else feels the same way.
Judging from early reasponses, I would say not many do. Oh well, not the first time I've been in the minority and won't be the last.
I've got to run and do RL stuff now, but I'll check in on this thread tomorrow and see if any other opinions have manifested.
Whether you know it or not, that's very old school. I get the impression many players today would not accept that style, and aren't comfortable with that level of GM discretion. You're blessed to have a table that does.I originally started running my game closed book due to rules arguments bogging things down. The games that I play in are currently open book, whereas the game that I run is closed book. Twice as much gets done in half the time when things are closed book. It just has the added benefit of making things slightly harder to meta-game. Really once you set the tone of on-the-fly rulings, the players will simply keep the books closed unless they need to reference something for their individual character (Casters should know what their spells do or have them written down separately).Play with books closed. If there's a rules debate, make a ruling that's good until the session ends "For now the DC is going to be X". Discuss between sessions. If your ruling is incorrect, bring up the correct ruling next session "Bill was right, the DC is actually Y".Interesting thought, but I doubt most players would go for it. I do tell my players that they should never count on th DCs in the books being the ones that will use because I do make heavy use of situational modifiers.
Yeah, I'm anything but an old school player (starting playing in '09). As with many things, it is partially a matter of presentation. If you sit down and say "Everyone close your books and put them away", that ain't gonna fly with a group that's accustomed to being able argue rulings. Pulling a pro-tip from How to Win Friends and Influence People, give them a reason to want things to go your way. If you're strapped for time, use phrases such as "Hey, if we keep arguing we're not going to have to time to get to the fun stuff up next, so for expediency I'm ruling X."
If I read you correctly, you are arguing that it is more fun and more heroic to be able to automatically succeed at some things.
I acknowledge it's just a matter of opinion, but I disagree. I find it more fun when there is more chance of failure, and find characters to be more heroic when they are triumphing over the odds, rather than avoiding the odds altogether.
What odds are you triumphing over exactly? I mean, again, you can't take 10 when you're distracted, and you're not supposed to know the DC of your target, so you're basically accepting the fact that 10 might not be enough to succeed.
For all the "You could have had a 30% chance of failure, but now it's auto-success!", it can be argued "You could have had a 30% chance of success, but now it's auto-failure!" You're only auto-suceeding on things you would have a 55% chance of being able to pull off even if you couldn't give your full attention to the task.
And, really, is it somehow more heroic to you to be stuck in the bottom of a pit for an hour (with nothing else going on), despite being an excellent and trained climber with a rope and grapnel because luck hates you and you can't roll above 3?
I mean, yes, it's triumphing over the odds (and thus, heroic) to make that climb while the bad guys are shooting down at you or while the beast in the pit is attacking you or... but all of those are distractions and make you need to roll the die.
I think the bigger issue at hand is that it is unfun to fail at fairly easy things. How many people have fun failing that save where only a 1 would...I think a lot of people agree with you, and that is why the rule was invented.
I just happen to be someone who doesn't and finds the possibility of failure, even if it is small, to add fun to the game. I just wanted to know if anyone else feels the same way.
Judging from early reasponses, I would say not many do. Oh well, not the first time I've been in the minority and won't be the last.
I've got to run and do RL stuff now, but I'll check in on this thread tomorrow and see if any other opinions have manifested.
This just appears to be a fundamental disagreement.
|
|
I like the take 10 rule.
But my players know that it is not an available option for Dramatically Important moments.
'Take 10' could easily be called the 'Don't Sweat the Small Stuff' rule: if a task is trivial for a given character, don't bother rolling. Only roll the dice when the task is non-trivial.
Take 10 is fine by me.
It specifically says that you can't be threatened or distracted. I can see a charismatic bard asking a farmer to o him a favour to be sucessful. Simple aid is something like lending fire to light up a cigar. I can see a rogue climbing a wall. It doesn't take anything from the Spiderman actually, as the Spiderman can climb a glass wall in combat which your rogue really can't (unless it's rather high level). Climb DCs really come to play when something unexpected happens or the rogue has to do something else. Here's your distraction. If you are clinging to the wall you've climbed by taking 10 doesn't mean you can't slip if you try to unhinge that drawbridge (roll climb). Unhinging the bridge is a disable device autosucess with take 10? Too bad that you need to split the attention to holding to that wall. Perception to auto-find traps? Sure, but somebody else should be watching for monsters or listening as these are definitely distracting when you are trying to find something suspicious right in front of you, on the walls and ceiling. Combinated tasks can create those rolling situations rather easily IMO.