A roll of 28 would have won the olympics in 2016. +10 and you can set the world record.
And you're assuming they rolled a 20 and not a 10 or a 1 because...?
Yes. The d20 system is wildly unrealistic in the variety and spread of the results.
In starfinder, an olympic athlete would have a +3 stat 3 ranks and skill focus at the minimum. Probably with fleet and if they're at the peak of their career jet dash.
You cannot declare control over characters limbic system because it gives you a mechanical advantage.
Nor can the GM declare control over a player's character's limbic system because it he suffers from the delusion that stealing control of my character somehow enhances the fun of the game.
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.
You're right, it's a game. Bottom line, games are supposed to be fun. This is a rule that does not in any way promote that.
Ergo, it shouldn't exist in its current form.
Nor can the GM declare control over a player's character's limbic system because it he suffers from the delusion that stealing control of my character somehow enhances the fun of the game.
Stable the drama llama already. "Thousand foot drops are scary" is a very reasonable dm's call, not taking control of your character.
I know you don't like anything that isn't spelled out verbatim in the rules but the fact that you are dealing with a conscious sentient being with a self preservation reflex is presumed by the rules. (an underdeveloped one or they wouldn't be adventuring but still...)
You're right, it's a game. Bottom line, games are supposed to be fun. This is a rule that does not in any way promote that.
Ergo, it shouldn't exist in its current form.
Aristotelian reasoning is a terrible decision making model.
Taking 10 does not in any way promote fun. So it shouldn't be allowed.
See how that works? Two completely answers. PARADOX.
The fact is that take 10 has both benefits and and drawbacks but you aren't going to see that if you treat denying it like something out of law and order special characters unit.
Do i wish the d20 were a little less swingy on the easy skills? Yes.
Is take 10 a better answer than the swinginess? I don't think it is. You're treating any roll of the dice like a failure and its not... most of the time you'll get the answer that you should have gotten.
Compare that with allowing take 10: there's no point in playing the first half of the game. Just do it by email you know whats going to happen. Or the Dcs are higher than 10, in which case you'll fail more than half the time and fumbling at something you're supposed to be good at is what we're trying to avoid here.
A homebrew solution would be : If you could succeed on a 10 or less and aren't under any pressure you can roll 2d20 and take the better result.
That should get the swinginess to a reasonable level.
|
Let's unpack that, then. The argument is that taking 10 should not be allowed because a 10' jump across a 1000' pit is scary, and therefore should not be allowed a take 10 on. Assuming the Pit Of Doom has a 10' run up, the DC we're looking at here is a DC 10. Unless each PC has an Athletics bonus of +9, then they each need to roll a die. If they fail, they fall in the pit, and take almost certainly enough damage to die.
Why, exactly, is this fun? Because that's what you're arguing here. It is more fun to roll a die and see if you live than say "I take 10."
Oh, and what about the technomage who shafted Strength and has a -1 Athletics? You're right, they can't take 10, and the party then has to come up with a solution that works for them. However, at that point, that's a character decision, not one imposed upon the characters by the GM and the tyranny of the d20.
There are places where taking 10 does not guarantee an automatic success. If taking 10 did, I wouldn't be arguing for it. All taking 10 does is give the players a tool to decide "do I want to risk getting better than my average, or do I think my average isn't good enough?" That's an interesting player choice; relying on a d20 for whether your character plummets a half-klik to their deaths because they rolled a 1 on a DC 10 Athletics check to jump a pit is not.
Misroi makes a good point.
It's a slippery slope to be sure.
"You need to cross this pit to continue with the adventure, thus it is plot relevant and you can't take 10."
...which is the kind of mindset that would essentially mean players could never take 10 on most anything, and which the new rule unintentionally promotes.
Reserving take 10 for things like knitting socks at home defeats the purpose of the rule's existence*. Such things can and should be handled by narrative alone.
You cannot declare control over characters limbic system because it gives you a mechanical advantage.Nor can the GM declare control over a player's character's limbic system because it he suffers from the delusion that stealing control of my character somehow enhances the fun of the game.
He is not. Taking control of your limbic system would be declaring, "your character is scared, and fail". What he does is saying "the situation is scary, lets check a d20 roll to see if your char is scared about it or not". And taking control of the situation around your char is exactly the GM's job.
That said: the situations with crucial effects and key to the story are exactly the ones I would NOT leave the control to a random generator like a d20. If the road to AP book 2 is that they find the small clue behind the desk, "let's check if you find it with a random chance to fail" is cut great. Most modern games go the other way around, and use stuff like "fail forward" and "success with consequences" to avoid that a string of bad rolls stop the story on its tracks.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's unpack that, then. The argument is that taking 10 should not be allowed because a 10' jump across a 1000' pit is scary, and therefore should not be allowed a take 10 on. Assuming the Pit Of Doom has a 10' run up, the DC we're looking at here is a DC 10. Unless each PC has an Athletics bonus of +9, then they each need to roll a die. If they fail, they fall in the pit, and take almost certainly enough damage to die.
Why, exactly, is this fun? Because that's what you're arguing here. It is more fun to roll a die and see if you live than say "I take 10."
Oh, and what about the technomage who shafted Strength and has a -1 Athletics? You're right, they can't take 10, and the party then has to come up with a solution that works for them. However, at that point, that's a character decision, not one imposed upon the characters by the GM and the tyranny of the d20.
My counterpoint to this is why have the pit at all if you don't have the wizard in your party, if taking 10 completely eliminates the threat of something how is it fun or good story telling to include it in the first place.
GM: You are standing in a giant chasm, there is a 10 foot pit between you and the other side.
Player: I jump over it taking 10 and that means I automatically succeed.
GM: Well there went all the dramatic tension of that thing, why did I put the pit there in the first place.
The situation I am specifically thinking of isn't a pit, its a SFS scenario where the DC for success is 16. Anyone with a class skill and 16 in a stat can get a 16 with a take 10. The secondary success condition of the scenario is tied to this 16 roll, if the GM allows the party to take 10 they basically auto succeed at this part of the scenario how is that fun or meaningful?
Misroi makes a good point.
It's a slippery slope to be sure.
"You need to cross this pit to continue with the adventure, thus it is plot relevant and you can't take 10."
...which is the kind of mindset that would essentially mean players could never take 10 on most anything, and which the new rule unintentionally promotes.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Not a decision making model.
You have your most agile character cross and then throw a rope over. If your party fails adventuring basics 101 that badly they probably deserve the chat with charles darwin.
Reserving take 10 for things like knitting socks at home defeats the purpose of the rule's existence*. Such things can and should be handled by narrative alone.
** spoiler omitted **
No.
Your options are not take 10 or a night of a thousand rolls. That is not how that works. It is not a valid argument to present only two options to support the idea of take 10 when there are many other options.
If the characters want to roll for their percpeptions or the DM says you can't take 10 in that circumstance (i would not), then the dm rolls or has you roll only when its relevant. You get a party formation and move them through the dungeon using it, and stop them in place when its time to roll. Its fast and easy.
Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Not a decision making model.
RavingDork isn't arguing with the logical fallacy of slippery slope; he's describing a situation I've seen some neophyte GMs fall into as a trap. Here's another pernicious problem that this rule encourages:
- PCs leave their base in the town of Nottingshanks. PCs come across a 10' chasm while exploring the dungeon. Each takes 10' and jumps across.
- They go back and forth across the same chasm multiple times in exploring. Each time they take 10 and jump across.
- The players learn that, while they were in the dungeon, Notthingshanks is under attack. Their presence is crucial to the effect. The GM rules that - because whether they can get across the pit is now crucial to the plot - they must roll to jump across.
Mechanically, nothing has changed. In-world, nothing has changed. The chasm that was easily traversed minutes earlier is now suddenly more treacherous and the characters have no idea why. The only thing that has changed is the GM's perception of "plot."
I've run plenty of games where challenges such as pits and walls are overcome by non-agile characters by taking 10, and it's never diminished the fun.
Your options are not take 10 or a night of a thousand rolls. That is not how that works. It is not a valid argument to present only two options to support the idea of take 10 when there are many other options.
Again, RavingDork posits a great example. Taking 10 also works when it's used to cut down on a character rolling five times in a row on the same check until they succeed only because the GM thinks that roll is "important."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My counterpoint to this is why have the pit at all if you don't have the wizard in your party, if taking 10 completely eliminates the threat of something how is it fun or good story telling to include it in the first place.GM: You are standing in a giant chasm, there is a 10 foot pit between you and the other side.
Player: I jump over it taking 10 and that means I automatically succeed.
GM: Well there went all the dramatic tension of that thing, why did I put the pit there in the first place.The situation I am specifically thinking of isn't a pit, its a SFS scenario where the DC for success is 16. Anyone with a class skill and 16 in a stat can get a 16 with a take 10. The secondary success condition of the scenario is tied to this 16 roll, if the GM allows the party to take 10 they basically auto succeed at this part of the scenario how is that fun or meaningful?
I see what you are saying; here's how I'd answer your questions:
With regard to the pit example: You are correct that putting an easily traversed pit in a room with no other purpose is bad design. But such a pit can have other effects, a few examples of which are below:
(1) Said pit could also be a tunnel to a different area. Players may jump over it easily, and later climb down it.
(2) The area with the pit may become the scene of a battle. I rarely design scenarios where combat will only occur in the room envisioned; my players tend to have running battles. So while the pit in the room may not matter on the first crossing, when they're under fire and trying to escape the Death Troopers, it matters very much.
(3) Related, if there are random encounters in the area where the PCs are, a battle might occur in that room even if it isn't scripted.
(4) It might be part of a larger design. There may be several pits that are easily traversed, and several which aren't. Making players roll for all pits turns the challenge from "cross the large ones" to a "roll to fail" scenario where PCs are likely going to fail one roll because they are rolling so many times.
With regard to "meaningful results:" Generally speaking I think it comes down to what you find meaningful in these games. For me, it is meaningful that I designed a character who can do something relevant to the plot and do it well. Even if the character didn't roll, my character got to use the skills I selected, which validates my choice.
To use a Pathfinder example, I've run games where my carefully laid plans or bruising villains were undone by a party caster having the perfect spell for that moment. This was a validation of that player's choice, and I can tell you that those players considered that a very meaningful result of their choice even though there wasn't a chance of failure.
I can understand the sentiment that rolling to see if you succeed leads to a meaningful sentiment. I would consider the alternative: Is the failure on the check also meaningful? Or will it result in the player saying "OK, I do it again" with no other consequence. If it's the latter, I do not see the harm in taking 10, even though the check is relevant to the plot.
I haven't reviewed the scenario in question, but I have noticed in the Dead Suns AP many of the skill checks involved are much lower than my PCs are regularly hitting. I suspect that early Starfinder material designers were not sure how high DCs needed to be, given that they were developing material as the rules were finalized.
RavingDork isn't arguing with the logical fallacy of slippery slope
He absolutely 100% is, and even said that was what was happening. BY NAME.
Here's another pernicious problem
You need some substance to back up the polemics here. When you have some i'll respond to it.
Again, RavingDork posits a great example.
.. of the either or fallacy. Either we take 10 or we have to make 10,000 rolls. Since that simply isn't true there's no argument here.
I suspect that early Starfinder material designers were not sure how high DCs needed to be, given that they were developing material as the rules were finalized.
No. Nothing with the Dcs fundamentally changed. Starfinder society simply assumes a reasonable level of skill rather than assuming that the group will have someone thats gone completely gonzo over any particular skill: maxed ranks, a +3 stat bonus, and +3 for trained. Starfinder parties are made of whatever mixed nuts sit at the table so you can't assume a skill monkey in any particular skill.
The DCs are made with the idea that people will be rolling and the party will make the rolls with some consistency.
I've been thinking about this a bit more and trying to come up with times where I think denying Take 10 because of "some sort of crucial effect as a key part of the adventure's story" could make sense.
- Here are some examples that seem appropriate:
- The party is doing something where success is assumed but how quickly they succeed is at issue. I've seen multiple plots in various scenarios where it isn't only success that is important, but how quickly you manage to succeed.
- The party is doing something where the roll decides which path is taken and failure at the skill check doesn't deny them the opportunity to succeed.
- There are multiple rolls involved with the same skill such that a short string of bad rolls doesn't doom the characters to failure. Hopefully the adventure also rewards a higher than required success, such as success by +5 or +10.
The big thing is it should probably be limited to those cases where it is decided by multiple rolls. When there are multiple rolls, a single lucky roll probably isn't going to put the person getting by on raw talent ahead of the person that is highly skilled in it. If one person has a +5 while the other has a +15, the person with the +15 is extremely likely to succeed more often. If it is all decided by a single roll, there is a reasonable chance of the lucky talented person doing better than the skilled person.