Except the DCs are right there in the Core Rulebook. Sure, they can be modified situationally (although some players have argued passionately on these boards before against use of situaitonal modifiers), but just a quick glance at the book is going to give you an idea what you need. Is it metagaming? Of course. Will a lot of players do it? Of course.This isn't about my table. It's not really a problem at my table. Most of my folks are old school and don't even usually think to use this mechanic unless I remind them of it. This is more sparked by just reaidng the rules and thinking about their consequences.
That's my point Brian, in many cases it's metagaming and that's it's own, separate, issue.
Whether it's 'easy' metagaming or more 'difficult' metagaming (like memorizing all of the old monster manuals) isn't germane either.
But dealing with metagaming IS a table issue.
-James
PS: You didn't respond to the other part of my post.. where would the 'cut-off' for you be comfort-wise? Take 8?
Honestly, the way I would prefer is not to have the mechanic at all, but rather to give the GM discretion to waive any skill roll and decree autosuccess if the chance of failure is deemed minimal or if the skill check is not really important to the game. I almost do this now. I waive a lot of skill checks, but I still do allow Take 10 for others, in accordance with the RAW.
But then I'm a proponent of more GM discretion, and I know that you really aren't.
Except the DCs are right there in the Core Rulebook. Sure, they can be modified situationally (although some players have argued passionately on these boards before against use of situaitonal modifiers), but just a quick glance at the book is going to give you an idea what you need. Is it metagaming? Of course. Will a lot of players do it? Of course.This isn't about my table. It's not really a problem at my table. Most of my folks are old school and don't even usually think to use this mechanic unless I remind them of it. This is more sparked by just reaidng the rules and thinking about their consequences.
That's my point Brian, in many cases it's metagaming and that's it's own, separate, issue.
Whether it's 'easy' metagaming or more 'difficult' metagaming (like memorizing all of the old monster manuals) isn't germane either.
But dealing with metagaming IS a table issue.
-James
PS: You didn't respond to the other part of my post.. where would the 'cut-off' for you be comfort-wise? Take 8?Honestly, the way I would prefer is not to have the mechanic at all, but rather to give the GM discretion to waive any skill roll and decree autosuccess if the chance of failure is deemed minimal or if the skill check is not really important to the game. I almost do this now. I waive a lot of skill checks, but I still do allow Take 10 for others, in accordance with the RAW.
But then I'm a proponent of more GM discretion, and I know that you really aren't.
Then why bother writing a game with rules at all? Just write a book that is a series of recommendations and acts as a soundboard for GM ideas. This is another case of "I don't like a game with rules so I am going to covertly argue against it by disagreeing with one rule at a time."
Great, you do what you do at your table. Why make a thread? In fact, let's just wrap this baby up and send it to the houserules forum and you can have a discussion about houserules to replace taking 10.
Except the DCs are right there in the Core Rulebook. Sure, they can be modified situationally (although some players have argued passionately on these boards before against use of situaitonal modifiers), but just a quick glance at the book is going to give you an idea what you need. Is it metagaming? Of course. Will a lot of players do it? Of course.
This isn't about my table. It's not really a problem at my table. Most of my folks are old school and don't even usually think to use this mechanic unless I remind them of it. This is more sparked by just reaidng the rules and thinking about their consequences.
Don't you think people who are skilled would know the difficulty tasks?
If someone has 5 ranks in Acrobatics, clearly they've spent a fair amount of time jumping, rolling, and prancing around. Do you not think a gymnist would know how likely they are to succeed at jumping a certain distance, navigating a narrow ledge, or maneuvering across slippery ground? If they can Take 10 and auto-succeed, that essentially means they do this activity all the time, and there's nothing to it.
Based on your past statements, it seems you view the PCs as generally average people. They're essentially a group of "single mother[s] working two jobs and raising four kids". People that have made mistakes in their lives and are in bad situations, but are persevering.
This isn't the framework under which the rules were written. PCs with skill ranks such that they auto-succeed (Take 10) on difficult tasks (DC 20) are not average. They are specialists. They are people you write books about.
I'll concede that people with multiple skill ranks in something would probably have a good idea of the chance of success of something, in general terms. That is quite a bit different from doing the math, knowing the exact score needed and using that knowledge to eliminate all chance of failure. For me, to eliminate all chance of failure, you need to have the skill ranks to well, eliminate all chance of failure.
And I guess I don't see 5th level characters as "people you write books about". I see them as promising individuals who are progressing in that direction. That's a personal preference thing, and one I know that I am probably in the minority in as well. I want my characters to have a progression from gifted neophyte to legendary over the course of a career. I think a lot of other folks want to jump to the legendary quicker.
Agreed. It seems a lot of GMs really just want to write books that other people (players) are forced to read. They like the idea of dice rolls to figure out if the combat took 3 turns or 6, or how many PCs had to try at some mundane task before someone finally succeeded (or the PCs give up and go the route the GM planned), but otherwise know what's going to happen.Then why bother writing a game with rules at all? Just write a book that is a series of recommendations and acts as a soundboard for GM ideas. This is another case of "I don't like a game with rules so I am going to covertly argue against it by disagreeing with one rule at a time."
Great, you do what you do at your table. Why make a thread? In fact, let's just wrap this baby up and send it to the houserules forum and you can have a...
I think, contrarily, that they want books that players are inherently barred from reading so it doesn't ruin the GM's playstyle by trying to adhere to the rules he doesn't like.
Agreed. It seems a lot of GMs really just want to write books that other people (players) are forced to read. They like the idea of dice rolls to figure out if the combat took 3 turns or 6, or how many PCs had to try at some mundane task before someone finally succeeded (or the PCs give up and go the route the GM planned), but otherwise know what's going to happen.Then why bother writing a game with rules at all? Just write a book that is a series of recommendations and acts as a soundboard for GM ideas. This is another case of "I don't like a game with rules so I am going to covertly argue against it by disagreeing with one rule at a time."
Great, you do what you do at your table. Why make a thread? In fact, let's just wrap this baby up and send it to the houserules forum and you can have a...
Hey. Here we go. Thanks, guys. Extrapolating from my raising questions about a single one-paragraph rule in a huge tome of rules, you jump immediately to assuming I want to do away with all the rules and run storytime for my players. Not even worth responding to.
However, I agree with you that this thread has run its course, in terms of usefulness to me.
I had an issue that I wanted to raise to see if others felt the way I did, and I got my answer.
That answer, pretty much, is NO, although a few people did qualify that some potential uses of the Take 10 mechanic make them uneasy, and a couple of others indicated ways they constrain it at their table.
I find that useful. My mind works somewhat differently from a lot of people's and I like to check periodically and see if I'm sailing off on a tangent. Not that that will necessarily stop me from saling off on that tangent, anyway. The majority is not always right.
It's not my intention to force my views on any of you, just to share them. Also, if I knew all the answers already and didn't want your opinions, I wouldn't ask for them. Thanks to all of you who participated in this thread for sharing yours. It keeps me sharp.
I'm still wondering what the problem with take 10 is other than it is taking 10.
In a game based on dice rolls, it is the slim chance to skip the time and chance of rolling the dice and making calculations when it wouldn't otherwise matter.
How does this hurt anything? An accomplished climber climbs a knotted rope. A diplomat asks a stranger on the street to help him pick up his dropped books. An acrobat cartwheels over some ice.
I PRESUME the real problem is people only do it when they "know" they will succeed by knowing the base DCs and having high skill ranks. No one is uncomfortable with the -5 Diplomacy Fighter taking 10 on asking a random stranger for direction. He'll fail, but he can still take 10. But since he doesn't autosucceed, GMs watching PCs automatically waltz around "challenges" don't get antsy. The problem is therefore "metagaming" in the sense that people have a modicum of understanding of the game rules and use them. For example, even if you have no idea what the DC is to climb a rough cave wall, if you have a +20 to climb, aren't going to say you take 10 anyway? Perhaps certain types of GMs would feel better if players had no knowledge of their characters and had no idea about their capabilities other than a general sense delivered by the GM to prevent "metagaming."
Fifth level characters can fly, call lightning from the sky, step into dimensional rifts, and receive favors from gods to cure blindness. That's not a "promising individual". That's someone who takes reality and has their way with it.
Unfortunately, for most people, that only gets to apply to casters. Rogues, Fighters, and Barbarians are often seen as promising individuals, because people have problems with them doing fantastical things with skills. This is a travesty. The charismatic Rogue should be able to bend the desires of the common man to his will (Diplomacy). The burly Barbarian should be capable of ending a bar fight in 12 seconds, frightening everyone in the room and causing them to flee (Intimidate). Under RAW, these classes can do these things with skills. Why nerf them, and not the Wizards?
Even at level 1, characters are extraordinary. That's why they get a 15 Point Buy, compared to the commoner's 3 Point Buy.
+17
Lots of interesting stuff.Nope, doesn't surprise me. It fits your game style as you;ve described it previously. Your style isn't mine, but sounds like you're having fun. Rock on.
Just one clarification. I'm not usually bothered by Take 10 removing chance of failure for things that are routine or for which the chance of failure should logically be small. I have more of an issue for things that shouldn't (in my mind at least) be routine and for whcih the chance of failure could be as much as 45% if you rolled the dice.
I guess another way of framing how I look at things can best be described through the essay Calibrating you Expectations by Justin Alexander.
It's from that vantage point that by around 5th level someone who has invested heavily in a skill ought to be able to hit DC 20 without any real fuss in their specialty, and for all intents and purposes auto-succeed at it, simply because 5th level is basically maxing out the scale that resembled human existence.
If you have to wait until mid and high levels, when you're basically a supernatural being in terms of how the underlying mechanics of the game function, it just seems far too long to wait for that effect.
Read that essay before. Frankly, I disagreed with it almost completely. I don't want my fantasy worlds to be that far from the actual human experience in this one. Just a matter of taste.
Read that essay before. Frankly, I disagreed with it almost completely. I don't want my fantasy worlds to be that far from the actual human experience in this one. Just a matter of taste.
Lots of interesting stuff.Nope, doesn't surprise me. It fits your game style as you;ve described it previously. Your style isn't mine, but sounds like you're having fun. Rock on.
Just one clarification. I'm not usually bothered by Take 10 removing chance of failure for things that are routine or for which the chance of failure should logically be small. I have more of an issue for things that shouldn't (in my mind at least) be routine and for whcih the chance of failure could be as much as 45% if you rolled the dice.
I guess another way of framing how I look at things can best be described through the essay Calibrating you Expectations by Justin Alexander.
It's from that vantage point that by around 5th level someone who has invested heavily in a skill ought to be able to hit DC 20 without any real fuss in their specialty, and for all intents and purposes auto-succeed at it, simply because 5th level is basically maxing out the scale that resembled human existence.
If you have to wait until mid and high levels, when you're basically a supernatural being in terms of how the underlying mechanics of the game function, it just seems far too long to wait for that effect.
To drag out the thoroughly beaten dead horse, I think you are playing the wrong game.
|
No problem with that. But that's not actually what the rules say. The rules say nothing about dramatically important or non-trivial. All they say is you can't use it in combat or other stressful situations.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.
DM Ruling: All trivial and dramatically unimportant rolls (outside of combat) are deemed Not Stressful.
Dramatically Important or Non-Trivial rolls are all deemed Stressful.
Done.
To drag out the thoroughly beaten dead horse, I think you are playing the wrong game.Read that essay before. Frankly, I disagreed with it almost completely. I don't want my fantasy worlds to be that far from the actual human experience in this one. Just a matter of taste.
Lots of interesting stuff.Nope, doesn't surprise me. It fits your game style as you;ve described it previously. Your style isn't mine, but sounds like you're having fun. Rock on.
Just one clarification. I'm not usually bothered by Take 10 removing chance of failure for things that are routine or for which the chance of failure should logically be small. I have more of an issue for things that shouldn't (in my mind at least) be routine and for whcih the chance of failure could be as much as 45% if you rolled the dice.
I guess another way of framing how I look at things can best be described through the essay Calibrating you Expectations by Justin Alexander.
It's from that vantage point that by around 5th level someone who has invested heavily in a skill ought to be able to hit DC 20 without any real fuss in their specialty, and for all intents and purposes auto-succeed at it, simply because 5th level is basically maxing out the scale that resembled human existence.
If you have to wait until mid and high levels, when you're basically a supernatural being in terms of how the underlying mechanics of the game function, it just seems far too long to wait for that effect.
Yep, that line is a dead horse that has been thoroughly beaten and should be mercifully hauled off and buried. Suggesting someone should be playing another game is equivalent to admitting you have nothing further constructive to say, so why say it?
I have played many other games over the 33 years I've been playing pen and paper RPGs, thank you very much, but I still do keep coming back to the PF/D&D line, for a lot of reasons I won't bore everyone with now. That doesn't mean I think it is perfect or can't be improved. I know that you also share that view or you wouldn't be passionately arguing for a change in rules for the prereqs for Improved Trip and other feats in a different thread.
Unless you are going to take the line that the things you want changed are inherently superior to the things I want changed because well, you're YOU and I'm ME.
I don't try to force anyone else to agree with me. I just express my opinion and am interested in hearing the opinions of others. Even yours.
Yep, that line is a dead horse that has been thoroughly beaten and should be mercifully hauled off and buried. Suggesting someone should be playing another game is equivalent to admitting you have nothing further constructive to say, so why say it?
Because people keep coming back with the "I don't want to play such a fantastical/heroic/supernatural D&D/PF" line.
I have no problem with players succeeding. I'm all for it in fact. I just think autosucceeding at individual tasks as much as it is possible to do under the rules is boring. I like my game to be a little more difficult.
Then increase the DCs -- that's what the D stands for, after all.
Again, considering your earlier statement was about being heroic and beating the odds -- I think you're missing the whole point about not being able to roll when they're distracted or in stressful situations (because the latter, at least, to me would be the times when you're actually being heroic..)
I mean, for instance, you could easily rule the rogue can't take 10 to climb the wall just because you closed the door and "ended the combat" if the Orcs on the other side are chopping at it with their axes -- and that's still a stressful, distracting situation.
At the same time, if you, instead defeat the orcs and *then* look at making the climb, well, the rogue can focus on it (rather than the hacking noises behind him), and off he goes.
In this game a sixth-level fighter type has a decent chance of going up against two or three bulls and coming out victorious.
Doesn't it make sense that such person isn't going to have trouble with a knotted rope?
In this game a fifth-level rogue type has a decent chance of evading a fireball he's standing in the middle of.
Doesn't it make sense that such a person isn't going to have trouble picking simple locks?
In this game a fifth-level druid can turn into a $*#!ing animal! Every day. And talk to animals with the use of a simple spell.
Doesn't it make sense that such a person isn't going to have trouble searching for enough roots and berries and water to keep himself fed?
Look. Take 10 isn't about combat. It's about mundane daily tasks that you should assume PCs get good at. The mechanic is designed to prevent situations where PCs abilities out of combat scale in proportion with their combat prowess.
"Yesterday I sneak-attacked an adult black dragon to death. Today I stabbed myself in the face while trying to unlock a pair of manacles because my DM doesn't like the take-ten rule and thinks there isn't enough drama in this game."
You really want to be that DM? 'Cuz if I'm playing for you I'm going to just stop doing anything with locks and focus on kicking dragon-butt all day long so I feel less like a loser.
D&D isn't the only game out there.
I mean, there's others.
D&D 3e is a game of heroic fantasy. If you do not want to play a game of heroic fantasy, then D&D3e is most likely not the game for you! Now, there's a wide variety of choices available, from RuneQuest, to Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, to GURPS. Really, there's a lot of systems out there that're really good at not being heroic fantasy!
But if you want heroic fantasy, then by golly, D&D3e and D&D4e are right up your ally.
And if you don't want heroic fantasy, they aren't.
Forgive me if these points have been made already, I haven't had a chance to read more than the first page.
1st, the Take 10 rule is there so that DMs can hand wave away "routine" actions, whatever those may be for a given character, while still maintaining the relative simplicity of the skills. Does this mean that certain things are no longer challenges to the party? Yes, but if a rogue trains in climbing vertical surfaces all the time in his down time, than it shouldn't be considered a challenge. Find something that the party doesn't auto succeed if you want to provide a challenge; this can be tough if running an AP or published module, but that is your job as a DM. No one who knew what they were talking about ever claimed DMing was easy.
2nd, Diplomacy can do wonders. It also has limits that most people fail to take into account. Yes, a very charismatic person can make instant friends, but the favors those friends are going to be willing to give the party are not going to be the same favors that they are willing to give life long buddies. In other words, you can get the king to listen to your story, and after a test to prove your mettle, he might give you access to the weapons/information you seek, but he's not just going to give kingdom level secrets to a bunch of strangers without some kind of proof that their story has merit or that they are truly friendly to his realm.