Was reading Werekoala's shorthanded 4e thread and have become fairly interested in the digression on skills and their use in 4e and other games. Rather than continue to add to the digression there I figured I'd make my own thread about it :)
Seems to me that in dealing with skills, starting in 3.0 and continuing until now in 4e, the whole rule section of skills relating to taking 10 and taking 20 get's either forgotten or ignored by many players and GMs, much like the old weapon speeds and weapons vs. armor types in days of old. I would often bring up taking 10 and 20 for skills for the very reason Benoist describes, I hate having to roll for every little thing. IMO, the modern versions of DnD were actually designed to have skill rolls only be attempted if the character is under stress, or failure would have serious consequences, or the action could only be attempted once and then the whateveritwas would be gone/lost/destroyed/over. IME this approach was very often ignored or forgotten and we would end up rolling for pretty much every use of the skills. Makes me miss the old way of doing things Benoist has talked about, hence my gravitation towards retros or "old school feel" games. How 'bout ya'all?
Quote from: Sigmund;387744Makes me miss the old way of doing things Benoist has talked about, hence my gravitation towards retros or "old school feel" games. How 'bout ya'all?
I make this explicit in my rulesets - if an ordinarily competent person would have little to no trouble, there should be no dice rolled.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;387759I make this explicit in my rulesets - if an ordinarily competent person would have little to no trouble, there should be no dice rolled.
-clash
I would add for routine things that you don't always have to make a roll in the first place. It really boils down to "When do you actually roll?" Usually for routine things that aren't terribly consequential, I ignore the roll. In a modern game, making players roll their Drive skill every time they leave the house would probably result in an unrealistic number of accidents.
I think comes down to GM style. Most games rules advise you only roll for things when it matters but a quite a few GMs seem to disregard this advice. I suspect some GM think that making the player roll often makes the game more interactive, even when the dice roll are kind of meaningless.
And don't get me started on the "frequent perception checks" GMs.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;387766I would add for routine things that you don't always have to make a roll in the first place. It really boils down to "When do you actually roll?" Usually for routine things that aren't terribly consequential, I ignore the roll. In a modern game, making players roll their Drive skill every time they leave the house would probably result in an unrealistic number of accidents.
Hi Brendan!
That's exactly what I meant. Routine actions are never rolled for because a normally competent person would not have trouble doing them. Violating this leads to people rolling to walk across the street.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;387759I make this explicit in my rulesets - if an ordinarily competent person would have little to no trouble, there should be no dice rolled.
-clash
We call this the AA rule, short for 'Any Asshole'...as in, "Any Asshole should be able to do that'.
Quote from: Soylent Green;387770And don't get me started on the "frequent perception checks" GMs.
God, that's fucking annoying. I know those too.
Quote from: LordVreeg;387780We call this the AA rule, short for 'Any Asshole'...as in, "Any Asshole should be able to do that'.
For a moment I thought that meant "any Anonymous Alcoholic should be able to do that". :D
The thing that kills me about the frequent perception check is when everyone get to roll it. If you let 4-8 people roll for whatever, you are going to get a natural 20 from someone close to a third of the time.
Quote from: Cranewings;387812The thing that kills me about the frequent perception check is when everyone get to roll it. If you let 4-8 people roll for whatever, you are going to get a natural 20 from someone close to a third of the time.
This can be tricky sometimes. The thing about a group though is the more people you have on something, the more likely they will see or hear something. I think the important thing to keep in mind is that the people failed, still failed. It all depends on how the situation is being played out, but often times, there won't be enough time for those who succeeded to inform the rest of the party about what they've seen. In some circumstances you could argue that some people don't get a roll (if they just aren't in a position to detect anything) or that some people receive penalties (again if they are in a bad position).
Or the GM that made everyone roll 200-400 Swim rolls when the boat sank (3e)...Fortunately, I wasn't in that game long.
Back to 4e, they solve the "Roll Perception every 10 feet" problem by having Passive Perception/Awareness. You don't roll to see if you see the Orcs-In-Hiding; the Orcs-In-Hiding roll to see if they stay hidden. Expanding the template to other skills wouldn't be hard; just subtract the 1d20 roll and add 10.
The thing about "Take 10" or "Take 20" is, it tends to be boring, for the simple lack of risk. I'd rather just be told what happens, if there's no risk.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;387825Or the GM that made everyone roll 200-400 Swim rolls when the boat sank (3e)...Fortunately, I wasn't in that game long.
Back to 4e, they solve the "Roll Perception every 10 feet" problem by having Passive Perception/Awareness. You don't roll to see if you see the Orcs-In-Hiding; the Orcs-In-Hiding roll to see if they stay hidden. Expanding the template to other skills wouldn't be hard; just subtract the 1d20 roll and add 10.
The thing about "Take 10" or "Take 20" is, it tends to be boring, for the simple lack of risk. I'd rather just be told what happens, if there's no risk.
Well 'passive perception' is hardly an innovation; its the same as an opposed roll where the PCs are assumed to take-10.
I do think taking-10 is something of a 'lost' rule, and I have no idea why. If the DC is likely to be less than [10+your modifier] a character should take-10 or they're deliberately risking shooting themselves in the foot. The funniest thing we ever had was the GM who declared taking-10 took 10 times as long...
From memory (someone correct me if I'm wrong) 4e does seem to discourage taking 10, though: I believe a skill challenge always counts as an 'encounter' so that you can't take 10, even if the challenge is something that doesn't involve combat/stress/risk.
"Take 10" in 3e took 5x longer. So yes, for D&D, it's new.
My memory coincides with Abyssal Maw in that, in a Skill Challenge, it is possible to avoid rolling through role-playing. Hopefully, he'll have further details later. If not, I can always look.
Off the top of my head, I know the DMG 2 talks about allowing options other than skills. Bribery, smart use of powers, etc.
The PHB chapter on skills includes rules for taking 10, under Checks without Rolls. I'm not sure if this is intended to extend to skill challenges, but personally, if I'm looking at a PC who has Arcana at +14, I'm gonna tell him that he knows what's going on even in the middle of a skill challenge. Or I'll tell him to make an Arcana check, don't roll a 1.
Why roll? Because random chance is a key element in the style of roleplaying I enjoy. It's too easy for the DM to decide what's going to happen in advance if you don't pay attention to the dice. They are our oracles.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;387830"Take 10" in 3e took 5x longer. So yes, for D&D, it's new.
My memory coincides with Abyssal Maw in that, in a Skill Challenge, it is possible to avoid rolling through role-playing. Hopefully, he'll have further details later. If not, I can always look.
!
No, taking 10 takes the same time as making a check normally.
taking 20 takes 20 times as long, since its shorthand for saying 'you can roll as long as you like until you get a good result, and we're not going to bother counting how many rolls that is.'.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387839!
No, taking 10 takes the same time as making a check normally.
taking 20 takes 20 times as long, since its shorthand for saying 'you can roll as long as you like until you get a good result, and we're not going to bother counting how many rolls that is.'.
My memory could be faulty; let me check the 3.5 PHB...
...Ah, sorry, I was wrong.
No probs.
Just goes to show what Sigmund said, its like they're the lost rules.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387828I do think taking-10 is something of a 'lost' rule, and I have no idea why. If the DC is likely to be less than [10+your modifier] a character should take-10 or they're deliberately risking shooting themselves in the foot. The funniest thing we ever had was the GM who declared taking-10 took 10 times as long...
I've encountered at least two DMs who considered that Take-10 or Take-20 were essentially cheating or at least rule-lawyering. That is, when I said that my character used the option, the DM would get annoyed and look for ways to penalize my character or the group for trying to weasel out of the roll.
I don't know if I can explain why this is in psychological terms. I think the options really have to be pushed harder in the rules if they're going to be accepted as "the way it should be" rather than "weaselly things that rules-lawyers may do."
Quote from: jhkim;387869I've encountered at least two DMs who considered that Take-10 or Take-20 were essentially cheating or at least rule-lawyering. That is, when I said that my character used the option, the DM would get annoyed and look for ways to penalize my character or the group for trying to weasel out of the roll.
I don't know if I can explain why this is in psychological terms. I think the options really have to be pushed harder in the rules if they're going to be accepted as "the way it should be" rather than "weaselly things that rules-lawyers may do."
Interesting. I'm not sure if our 'takes 10 times as long' GM might be placed in that category too, or if he was just confused with take-20.
I suppose it could be that these GMs feel their authority in demanding a check is being undercut - if they think a task should have *some* margin of failure, just not alot?
Or given that player information is needed to determine the DC and check the bonus, to see if it can be done, it can be seen as gaming the system? Particularly since 'taking -10" is a player action that doesn't have any sort of real-world analogue, instead of a character action ("I apply this rule" rather than "My character does this")?
Quote from: jhkim;387869I've encountered at least two DMs who considered that Take-10 or Take-20 were essentially cheating or at least rule-lawyering. That is, when I said that my character used the option, the DM would get annoyed and look for ways to penalize my character or the group for trying to weasel out of the roll.
I don't know if I can explain why this is in psychological terms. I think the options really have to be pushed harder in the rules if they're going to be accepted as "the way it should be" rather than "weaselly things that rules-lawyers may do."
I totally don't understand this. IMO the rules are great because they provide a method of using a skill that bypasses having to roll every time and that makes the game flow more smoothly and quickly and lets us get in more action in a given game session. Individually it's not much time, but add up all the times a character can take 10 instead of having to roll due to being highly skilled in a given area and it works out to much less time rolling and applying results and more time moving the game along. Win all around as far as I'm concerned. It's an even bigger bonus when the player devises a way to have a skill they're really good at apply to a given situation. Creativity and character/player success.... what's the downside?
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387871Interesting. I'm not sure if our 'takes 10 times as long' GM might be placed in that category too, or if he was just confused with take-20.
I suppose it could be that these GMs feel their authority in demanding a check is being undercut - if they think a task should have *some* margin of failure, just not alot?
Or given that player information is needed to determine the DC and check the bonus, to see if it can be done, it can be seen as gaming the system? Particularly since 'taking -10" is a player action that doesn't have any sort of real-world analogue, instead of a character action ("I apply this rule" rather than "My character does this")?
The prob is that take 10 is used mainly in situations where failure wouldn't be a big deal anyway, and as for the bonus, the DM can still keep DCs secret and the player can just ask if take 10 might be applicable. Really, what we're talking about here is situations that aren't important or risky and where the chance of failure is really low. Sure, I've tripped over a bit of the sidewalk while strolling down the street a couple times in my 40 years, but it's hardly a serious or frequent danger. We're not making characters roll to walk around town or down a path in the woods, why make a rogue roll to pick a lock he could have owned when he was 5? Why make a high level ranger roll survival to catch some fish in a river teeming with salmon? Unless those things are vital to the future direction of the game, what's the point?
Quote from: Sigmund;387897The prob is that take 10 is used mainly in situations where failure wouldn't be a big deal anyway, and as for the bonus, the DM can still keep DCs secret and the player can just ask if take 10 might be applicable. Really, what we're talking about here is situations that aren't important or risky and where the chance of failure is really low. Sure, I've tripped over a bit of the sidewalk while strolling down the street a couple times in my 40 years, but it's hardly a serious or frequent danger. We're not making characters roll to walk around town or down a path in the woods, why make a rogue roll to pick a lock he could have owned when he was 5? Why make a high level ranger roll survival to catch some fish in a river teeming with salmon? Unless those things are vital to the future direction of the game, what's the point?
Rather than use take 10 or take 20, I use this method:
I use my standard benchmarking: a "moderate" task is DC 11+(PC level/2). (hard tasks you bump up by 5, and 'extremely' tasks, bump by another +5).
This produces a low DC. just 11 -16 or so at the heroic tier. (Up by +5 or +10 in harder cases)
The DM calls for the skill roll and also gets to say what skill will be used AND who will be rolling it. So if the player A playing the dumb fighter starts talking and it gets to a diplomacy chck he can't say "oh, and the bard is making the roll.." The Low DC accounts for a certain amount of non-specialization.
If the player wants to use an alternate skill for anything, it should be allowed, but at a +5 bump to the DC.
When the player wants to roll for it, announce the DC, and let the player tell you if he even has to roll or not. ie: if he has the skill covered just on his bonus, you don't call for the roll. That's what the low DC gets you.
Quote from: Sigmund;387744IMO, the modern versions of DnD were actually designed to have skill rolls only be attempted if the character is under stress, or failure would have serious consequences, or the action could only be attempted once and then the whateveritwas would be gone/lost/destroyed/over.
Absolutely. If there is no immediate consequence, then don't roll. In 4e, I use the "passive +10" for all skills. AKA, if you have +8 Athletics, then I really don't worry about any non-crucial running, jumping or climbing with a DC 18 or less. But, you would roll in a crisis, spur of the moment situation.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;387830My memory coincides with Abyssal Maw in that, in a Skill Challenge, it is possible to avoid rolling through role-playing.
When I use skill challenges, good ideas either get you a dice roll bonus or an auto-success.
Quote from: Thanlis;387833Why roll? Because random chance is a key element in the style of roleplaying I enjoy. It's too easy for the DM to decide what's going to happen in advance if you don't pay attention to the dice. They are our oracles.
This is a very good point. Players like to roll dice and experience the risk of success / failure.
I'm with both you guys. It's a way to inject a little of the old "RP it" from before formalized skill systems, yet also have a decent skill system for when ya need it. I just wish more DMs and players actually would use it that way. The past couple groups I've been part of, while awesome in just about every other way, would often forget (and I'm often guilty of forgetting it as well) to use the rule and every little skill use would get rolled for. It's not just a DM thing either, we players can just as easily speak up and say "I'm just gonna 'Take 10' on that, since I have a +8 to my skill and the DC is only 15." or some such. Then the character feels competent as well, instead of letting unfortunate die rolls have the ancient history "expert" failing to remember the name of the king who went nuts and burned the city down a hundred years ago (frex).
The downside I could agrue to take-10 and especially take-20 rules is that they implicitly encourage the DM to call for inconsequential rolls. If the PC is in a situation where the consequences of failure are trivial and they're able to take-10, then why even bother with a take-10 at all? Why not just ditch the take-10 and take-20 rules altogether, say yes to situations of trivial consequence, and only call for rolls when there is something meaningful at risk?
Quote from: two_fishes;387929The downside I could agrue to take-10 and especially take-20 rules is that they implicitly encourage the DM to call for inconsequential rolls. If the PC is in a situation where the consequences of failure are trivial and they're able to take-10, then why even bother with a take-10 at all? Why not just ditch the take-10 and take-20 rules altogether, say yes to situations of trivial consequence, and only call for rolls when there is something meaningful at risk?
The rules themselves call for rolls under specific circumstances. Take-10 tells you, fairly, which rolls are unimportant - a character with a +2 modifier can balance on the 7-12 inch across sloped surface (a tree branch say) which is DC 12, and anyone else has to roll. Its fairer than saying "OK Jim, your character has Dex so you don't need to roll here: Greg and Matt, roll Balance because you ate the last slice of pizza".
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387989The rules themselves call for rolls under specific circumstances. Take-10 tells you, fairly, which rolls are unimportant - a character with a +2 modifier can balance on the 7-12 inch across sloped surface (a tree branch say) which is DC 12, and anyone else has to roll. Its fairer than saying "OK Jim, your character has Dex so you don't need to roll here: Greg and Matt, roll Balance because you ate the last slice of pizza".
Exactly. It gives you a skill system, then provides you a guide for when to ignore the system and just RP. That's how I see it anyway.
Quote from: flyingmice;387759I make this explicit in my rulesets - if an ordinarily competent person would have little to no trouble, there should be no dice rolled.
One of the great things about the Take 10 mechanics is that they explicitly tell you what's easy enough for
this character to do without rolling the dice. Which can also be highly informative when it comes to roleplaying.
For real fun, take a look at what Take 10 on Knowledge checks gives your high-level PC. Consider the implications.
Quote from: Soylent Green;387770And don't get me started on the "frequent perception checks" GMs.
OTOH, I'm a fan of frequent Perception checks. Used properly, they're a tool you can use to quickly re-focus attention; creating tension, doubt, or paranoia; and simultaneously raising a smoke screen so that the players don't know when they're making a meaningful Perception check.
In other words, it's "okay, folks, let's get back to the game" and the "gimme a sec while I ominously roll some dice back here" techniques rolled into one.
And, in a real pinch, you can use them to buy yourself a second to check your notes without creating awkward dead space at the table.
Of course, like any tool, it can be abused.
EDIT: I'm seeing now that this is some sort of "roll Perception every round" sort of thing. That's just crazy.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388029EDIT: I'm seeing now that this is some sort of "roll Perception every round" sort of thing. That's just crazy.
No, it really is the "Okay, let's refocus" or the GM buys some thinking time sort of Perception roll. When I figure the GM is doing that I rarely bother rolling ( I just declare I failed, as long as its not too obvious and confrontational). The way I see it, if the GM isn't interested in the actual outcome of my roll why should I be?
But if it works for you and your group that is cool.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388029One of the great things about the Take 10 mechanics is that they explicitly tell you what's easy enough for this character to do without rolling the dice. Which can also be highly informative when it comes to roleplaying.
For real fun, take a look at what Take 10 on Knowledge checks gives your high-level PC. Consider the implications.
Apologies. I didn't realize this was a D&D 3.X only thread when I posted. My utter and complete lack of knowledge of that system would prevent my taking part in any discussion concerning it. Please ignore my post! If I can, I will go back and remove it.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;388062Apologies. I didn't realize this was a D&D 3.X only thread when I posted.
I was re-reading InSpectres yesterday - it has a Take 4 rule. So it's not just 3e.
Seanchai
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;387989The rules themselves call for rolls under specific circumstances. Take-10 tells you, fairly, which rolls are unimportant - a character with a +2 modifier can balance on the 7-12 inch across sloped surface (a tree branch say) which is DC 12, and anyone else has to roll. Its fairer than saying "OK Jim, your character has Dex so you don't need to roll here: Greg and Matt, roll Balance because you ate the last slice of pizza".
This is kind of the sticking point for me. The rules are potentially calling for rolls when there are no meaningful consequences. If the consequence of the failed roll is,
"Well, you stumble a little, but you manage to get across," or even,
"you stumble a little, and your friends have to help you, but you get across," then why bother rolling at all--except that the rules say you must. On the other hand, if the consequences of failure are significant, then shouldn't everyone roll? After all, anyone can roll a 1.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;387898Rather than use take 10 or take 20, I use this method:
I use my standard benchmarking: a "moderate" task is DC 11+(PC level/2). (hard tasks you bump up by 5, and 'extremely' tasks, bump by another +5).
I don't get this.
Shouldn't difficulties be "objective" - difficult terrain is difficult terrain is difficult terrain?
What good is it for a character to master a skill (rank/bonus), only to find that his own experience level counters* what he has learned?
2 levels later, and the castle wall I already climbed before is actually
more difficult to climb?
* ... or most probably only lessens his learning, as I guess that the increase in skill rank would be more than +1/2 per level. But still, in order to just stay the same I'd need to raise each skill +1 every other level.
Quote from: two_fishes;388073This is kind of the sticking point for me. The rules are potentially calling for rolls when there are no meaningful consequences. If the consequence of the failed roll is, "Well, you stumble a little, but you manage to get across," or even, "you stumble a little, and your friends have to help you, but you get across," then why bother rolling at all--except that the rules say you must. On the other hand, if the consequences of failure are significant, then shouldn't everyone roll? After all, anyone can roll a 1.
They actually don't. If the consequences of failure are slight or irrelevent, and there's no time issue involved, then the "Take 20" rule would apply. So, if the character can't quite waltz across the branch with their skill, but it's not real high, and they're not being pursued, and there's others there to help, Take 20 kicks in and the character can be roleplayed to be crossing slower and more carefully than the others, with a helping hand from the last one to cross. Plus, as you say, if the consequences are significant (the branch is really high up), then neither Take 10 or Take 20 would apply and everyone would have to roll, because falling would cause injury or worse. I really think it's one of the better rules in modern DnD, and I have often wondered why it gets forgotten and/or pushed aside when it's so simple and IME can actually save time.
Quote from: flyingmiceApologies. I didn't realize this was a D&D 3.X only thread when I posted. My utter and complete lack of knowledge of that system would prevent my taking part in any discussion concerning it. Please ignore my post! If I can, I will go back and remove it.
-clash
I didn't intend it to be DnD only. I'm referring to DnD 3.x+ simply because I like the Take 10/20 rule and it was brought up before. I think, no matter our favorite systems, we can all benefit from exposure to how different folks and different games handle skills. Some like older DnD best because it has no formal skill system, while other folks hate that, and prefer comprehensive skill systems, and then there's the whole spectrum in between. Bring 'em all on I say. I think there's advantages to all the approaches, and reading about how everyone uses skills and which games/skill systems we each like best and why can be very educational.
Quote from: Sigmund;388097They actually don't. If the consequences of failure are slight or irrelevent, and there's no time issue involved, then the "Take 20" rule would apply. So, if the character can't quite waltz across the branch with their skill, but it's not real high, and they're not being pursued, and there's others there to help, Take 20 kicks in and the character can be roleplayed to be crossing slower and more carefully than the others, with a helping hand from the last one to cross. Plus, as you say, if the consequences are significant (the branch is really high up), then neither Take 10 or Take 20 would apply and everyone would have to roll, because falling would cause injury or worse. I really think it's one of the better rules in modern DnD, and I have often wondered why it gets forgotten and/or pushed aside when it's so simple and IME can actually save time.
So again, why not ditch take-20 and take-10 and replace them with "say yes"? What gets lost by doing that? Perhaps this is the reason the rule gets forgotten or pushed aside.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;388088Shouldn't difficulties be "objective" - difficult terrain is difficult terrain is difficult terrain?
That's certainly the way I run D&D games. I the character's want to climb Mount Toughasnails, the difficulty is what it is based on the mountain. If it lives up to its "Toughasnails" name, it might be DC 20 in WOTC D&D terms. If so, it'd be DC 20 if the characters are first level or 20th level. The mountain is what it is.
Quote from: two_fishes;388098So again, why not ditch take-20 and take-10 and replace them with "say yes"? What gets lost by doing that? Perhaps this is the reason the rule gets forgotten or pushed aside.
This is the usual question over substituting GM judgment for rules.
Take-10 and Take-20 mean that there are concrete parameters for when the GM should "say yes" that the players can predict - as opposed to it being purely up to GM judgment. There is still GM judgment in setting difficulties, of course, but there is at least some basis for the players to predict it.
Putting it purely as "say yes or roll the dice" means that the GM is given no clear guidelines for when to say yes, and the players thus have no basis for predicting when this will be.
Of course, a GM can be consistent about when to say yes, and communicate this basis to the players - but that's the usual question of free-form play versus having rules.
Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;388088I don't get this.
Shouldn't difficulties be "objective" - difficult terrain is difficult terrain is difficult terrain?
What good is it for a character to master a skill (rank/bonus), only to find that his own experience level counters* what he has learned?
2 levels later, and the castle wall I already climbed before is actually more difficult to climb?
* ... or most probably only lessens his learning, as I guess that the increase in skill rank would be more than +1/2 per level. But still, in order to just stay the same I'd need to raise each skill +1 every other level.
So it depends. If a character can climb a wall, and you've established a DC for that specific wall, the answer as far as I'm concerned is that DC should be set in stone for all eternity. It's DC 12 at 1st level, it's still DC 12 at 20th level. So if you go up to the point where you don't have to roll, thats fine.
ok, so that's the theoretical universe. But in reality, when you play, you don't always remember what DCs have been set for which tasks, in whatever places. So that's how you establish a standard baseline DC to stuff that you would normally assign DCs for.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388126ok, so that's the theoretical universe. But in reality, when you play, you don't always remember what DCs have been set for which tasks, in whatever places. So that's how you establish a standard baseline DC to stuff that you would normally assign DCs for.
Maybe you, but that's not the case of every DM, is it? Some other DM might just write down DCs in a note book, or directly on the map of a dungeon. I don't see how that possibility is more theoretical than yours? So the scenario under which you just assigned fixed DCs for stuff that don't change over the course of a campaign isn't more theoretical than you assigning a DC according to the PCs levels on the fly. I just don't see it.
The difference to me is philosophical: in one case (fixed DCs) the universe is what it is and the PCs deal with it in different ways at different levels, whereas in the other case (DCs determined according to the PCs level) the world revolves around the PCs, and somehow matches their capabilities all the time, even retroactively (the wall I climbed two levels ago is suddenly harder for me to climb).
For the record, nowhere in the 4e rules corpus does it say that the difficulty for climbing a given wall should change over time. It does encourage DMs to provide more difficult walls, however.
Quote from: Thanlis;388134For the record, nowhere in the 4e rules corpus does it say that the difficulty for climbing a given wall should change over time. It does encourage DMs to provide more difficult walls, however.
*This*
At first level, you're climbing a rocky cavern wall.
At tenth level, you're climbing a sheer castle wall patrolled by Evil King's Sentries.
At twentieth level, you're climbing the Tower of Doom, in the Land of Doom, owned by Lord Doom.
At thirtieth level, you're climbing the outside of Orcus' fortress.
The rule simply gives suggested DCs for those *Level-relevant* actions.
Quote from: Seanchai;388065I was re-reading InSpectres yesterday - it has a Take 4 rule. So it's not just 3e.
Seanchai
I believe the older version of Vampire let characters automatically succeed if the character had a dice pool > than target difficulty. (Somewhere a maths teacher died when this was written). You could opt to roll if you wanted a ton of successes, however.
Marvel Super Heroes (FASERIP version, not SAGA) let characters automatically pass a FEAT roll if the Intensity of the task was 3 ranks below their ability rank.
Probably other systems have other weird equivalents. There's also a reverse version - a couple of other systems (DC Heroes, HERO System) have rolls where automatic success is assumed for some checks, but you can opt to roll to increase how well you do ("Pushing"). This tends to be for superpowers or Strength checks rather than skill rolls, however.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;388149*This*
At first level, you're climbing a rocky cavern wall.
At tenth level, you're climbing a sheer castle wall patrolled by Evil King's Sentries.
At twentieth level, you're climbing the Tower of Doom, in the Land of Doom, owned by Lord Doom.
At thirtieth level, you're climbing the outside of Orcus' fortress.
The rule simply gives suggested DCs for those *Level-relevant* actions.
I don't see any of those climbs difficulties as relevant to the level of the characters attempting the climb. They might be relevant to the level (and/or wealth) of the being that owns the wall, but I don't see why the level of those attempting to climb it has any bearing on the difficulty of climbing it.
If first level characters stumble upon Orcus' Fortress, it's simply going to be too hard for them to climb. They'll either have to think of some other way to get in, come back when they are better at climbing, or the like. Being "too hard" top climb would even be a big hint that what's inside might be way too powerful for them and they really need to find something more suited to their current abilities to raid.
Quote from: RandallS;388250I don't see any of those climbs difficulties as relevant to the level of the characters attempting the climb. They might be relevant to the level (and/or wealth) of the being that owns the wall, but I don't see why the level of those attempting to climb it has any bearing on the difficulty of climbing it.
If first level characters stumble upon Orcus' Fortress, it's simply going to be too hard for them to climb. They'll either have to think of some other way to get in, come back when they are better at climbing, or the like. Being "too hard" top climb would even be a big hint that what's inside might be way too powerful for them and they really need to find something more suited to their current abilities to raid.
I guess they figured their players had access to common sense. Horrible of them, wot?
Quote from: Soylent Green;388053No, it really is the "Okay, let's refocus" or the GM buys some thinking time sort of Perception roll. When I figure the GM is doing that I rarely bother rolling ( I just declare I failed, as long as its not too obvious and confrontational). The way I see it, if the GM isn't interested in the actual outcome of my roll why should I be?
I'm not clear on how you would go about doing that in D&D.
But whatever. If your character is willfully not paying attention in such a way that they will always be surprised in every single encounter and you're perfectly content with that, more power to you.
Quote from: flyingmice;388062QuoteOne of the great things about the Take 10 mechanics is that they explicitly tell you what's easy enough for this character to do without rolling the dice. Which can also be highly informative when it comes to roleplaying.
Apologies. I didn't realize this was a D&D 3.X only thread when I posted. My utter and complete lack of knowledge of that system would prevent my taking part in any discussion concerning it. Please ignore my post! If I can, I will go back and remove it.
Apologies. I didn't realize you were functionally illiterate and would therefore baselessly assume that anyone talking about D&D 3.x must automatically be attempting to exclude all other discussion in the thread.
Sheesh!
Quote from: two_fishes;388098So again, why not ditch take-20 and take-10 and replace them with "say yes"? What gets lost by doing that? Perhaps this is the reason the rule gets forgotten or pushed aside.
(1) Take 20 implies a slow, methodical approach (and thus chews up time). In situations where time isn't a factor this may be irrelevant, of course.
(2) Differentiation between characters. (Just because Character A can do this, it doesn't follow that Character B can.)
(3) Similarly, Take 20 defines a minimum competency level.
It's pretty much the exact opposite of "say yes or roll the dice". It's a mechanic which specifically operates well in an environment where the game world has a tangible reality which is independent of the PCs. And it becomes meaningless if the DM is (for example) setting the DCs based on the skill bonuses the PCs have.
Sometimes it is important to change the difficulty based on the level of the character because there are things that Dungeons and Dragons, or other games, might not do a very good job of modeling.
Take a party of 10th level characters that have been adventuring in the game world for 7 years. This party might have climbed deep down into the underdark a dozen times, seen the highest mountain peaks, hoofed it barefoot across the desert, and all this time the wizard, right along with the fighter, has been getting physically challenged more than any normal human being.
Unfortunately, the wizard isn't allowed to take an appropriate bonus to his Constitution or Strength because he only gets 2 attribute points that have to go into Intelligence, and a hand full of skills that would evaporate if he put any ranks into cross class skills like Climb.
A 10th level character of any class should be an expert climber and spelunker, and if they have been traveling the world mostly on foot carrying their own equipment or on horseback and sleeping on the ground, they are probably tough as nails and in pretty good shape. It isn't fair and it breaks immersion, in my opinion, to act like a wizard that's been living through that only has a 40% chance to get up an easy wall. If you said, "ok, the rogue is over it in 3 seconds, but the wizard takes 6," it would seem a little more realistic.
Quote from: jaIt's pretty much the exact opposite of "say yes or roll the dice". It's a mechanic which specifically operates well in an environment where the game world has a tangible reality which is independent of the PCs. And it becomes meaningless if the DM is (for example) setting the DCs based on the skill bonuses the PCs have.
I find that skill based systems, since the whole system rests on the use of skills. Skills run the world, so having the DC's change screws up the internal stting logic even worse, especially for a GM that knows how to write a good adventure.
Saying yes too often in a world where the characters are defined by their skills reduces the finely tuned interface a good GM can create between the players and their 'characters as they are in the setting'.
Quote from: Originally Posted by RandallSI don't see any of those climbs difficulties as relevant to the level of the characters attempting the climb. They might be relevant to the level (and/or wealth) of the being that owns the wall, but I don't see why the level of those attempting to climb it has any bearing on the difficulty of climbing it.
If first level characters stumble upon Orcus' Fortress, it's simply going to be too hard for them to climb. They'll either have to think of some other way to get in, come back when they are better at climbing, or the like. Being "too hard" top climb would even be a big hint that what's inside might be way too powerful for them and they really need to find something more suited to their current abilities to raid.
This consistency is also critical for the whole 'World in Motion' ideal, that the setting exists, lives and breathes without the interference of the PCs. If the players feels that immutable facts of the world (like how hard a cliff is to scale) are changing because their characters came along, that reduces the internal logic of the setting.
Quote from: Cranewings;388420Sometimes it is important to change the difficulty based on the level of the character because there are things that Dungeons and Dragons, or other games, might not do a very good job of modeling.
Take a party of 10th level characters that have been adventuring in the game world for 7 years. This party might have climbed deep down into the underdark a dozen times, seen the highest mountain peaks, hoofed it barefoot across the desert, and all this time the wizard, right along with the fighter, has been getting physically challenged more than any normal human being.
Unfortunately, the wizard isn't allowed to take an appropriate bonus to his Constitution or Strength because he only gets 2 attribute points that have to go into Intelligence, and a hand full of skills that would evaporate if he put any ranks into cross class skills like Climb.
A 10th level character of any class should be an expert climber and spelunker, and if they have been traveling the world mostly on foot carrying their own equipment or on horseback and sleeping on the ground, they are probably tough as nails and in pretty good shape. It isn't fair and it breaks immersion, in my opinion, to act like a wizard that's been living through that only has a 40% chance to get up an easy wall. If you said, "ok, the rogue is over it in 3 seconds, but the wizard takes 6," it would seem a little more realistic.
Arg, No.
This is one of the things I hate most about a lot of games, assuming that skills get better as a character gains levels. It breaks immersion for me when the bowman and the wizard who have never been hit gain hit points, or when a thief gets better at a skill they have never used because the group killed something.
Better to assign a few skill levels if you feel like the group should have learned the basics of something, like climbing and spelunking, than to assume that every 10th level character should be able to.
When the GM chances a DC in response to the character leveling, he isn't saying that the thing actually became easier or harder. He is saying that the characters are more or less competent than their character sheet allows.
For example, a 10th level wizard with an 11 strength and no ranks in climb (total +1 bonus) approaches a wall that is "easy" and has a DC of 12. If he tries to climb it, especially if it is tall enough to force more than one skill check, he is probably going to fall.
Because the GM thinks that the wizard, who has been adventuring in the wilderness for years, should be able to get over the wall in a hurry, he drops the difficulty to 5. This isn't the same as saying the wall has more holes in it to grab onto.
Its saying, "your character has adventured in the wilderness long enough. He gains a +7 bonus because he has developed the instincts of an outdoors man, and quickly gauges the best way to defeat it."
This is a bonus that the GM might think the character deserves but isn't a part of the rules. Personally, nothing breaks immersion for me faster than a GM that acts like mid level characters that have been living outside for years can't negotiate the environment.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388424Arg, No.
This is one of the things I hate most about a lot of games, assuming that skills get better as a character gains levels. It breaks immersion for me when the bowman and the wizard who have never been hit gain hit points, or when a thief gets better at a skill they have never used because the group killed something.
Better to assign a few skill levels if you feel like the group should have learned the basics of something, like climbing and spelunking, than to assume that every 10th level character should be able to.
I'm not saying every character should. A wizard that got all of his levels researching spells in an ivory tower shouldn't. Characters should be able to competently move around in their environment and the GM should be fluid with it because the rules can't be.
Quote from: Cranewings;388426I'm not saying every character should. A wizard that got all of his levels researching spells in an ivory tower shouldn't. Characters should be able to competently move around in their environment and the GM should be fluid with it because the rules can't be.
So what do you think about assigning a few levels of competency in something they have used and done?
The rules are obviously the problme if they aren't modelling the game world properly.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388428So what do you think about assigning a few levels of competency in something they have used and done?
The rules are obviously the problme if they aren't modelling the game world properly.
To me, its the same thing. Dropping the difficulty, granting a bonus, or giving a bunch of skill ranks all mean the same thing. Its just a matter of taste, which way you hash it out.
I guess I'd prefer a combination. If the GM thinks you do something well enough to warrant an instant bonus to do something, it would be fair to write it down so that you know you get it later.
And 4e's "half-level" bonus is a way of simulating that.
Like the argument I had with a GM over wether my 17th-level character with no ranks in Spellcraft, could recognize "Continual Flame". He argued that, if I wanted that, I should put points in spellcraft. I argued I didn't have any points to spare (3.5 ed) and furthermore, he had a lot of exposure to magic, so he should have a layman's knowledge.
In 4e, this would be resolved by a theoretical conversion of my character having a +7 Spellcraft bonus, simply because he's assumed to have been around, been exposed to, seen and listened to the spellcasters talk about, magic.
If he hasn't had the necessary exposure, well, GM > Rules.
That's actually a 3.5 house rule I use. Your 6th level wizard is going to get a +3 bonus to climb if he's been living outside.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;388486And 4e's "half-level" bonus is a way of simulating that.
Like the argument I had with a GM over wether my 17th-level character with no ranks in Spellcraft, could recognize "Continual Flame". He argued that, if I wanted that, I should put points in spellcraft. I argued I didn't have any points to spare (3.5 ed) and furthermore, he had a lot of exposure to magic, so he should have a layman's knowledge.
In 4e, this would be resolved by a theoretical conversion of my character having a +7 Spellcraft bonus, simply because he's assumed to have been around, been exposed to, seen and listened to the spellcasters talk about, magic.
If he hasn't had the necessary exposure, well, GM > Rules.
I moderately like the 4E approach in this instance - one of a very few improvements IMHO. It does cause some issues elsewhere though: the 15th level (but otherwise mentally challenged) fighter can be employed by the local Adventurer's Guild to teach trap finding, lockpicking, spellcraft, basketweaving, fungus identification, potato farming and local history to the up-and-coming 1st levellers.
Then there's strength checks. The high level wizard arm-wrestles the beefy low-level fighter and rips his arm off, thanks to the +1/2 level bonus.
In our 3.5 campaigns, we certainly let characters recognize magic they're familiar with, Spellcraft or no. (The fighter recognizes a fireball after he's been roasted once). A 1st level fighter can probably afford a continual flame item - they cost about 90 GP - and I think they may be in the PHB equipment list. As a common item a GM really shouldn't make a character roll, and even allowing an untrained Appraise check wouldn't be out of line.
This mostly just highlights that lots of classes get too few skill points, and that cross-class skills are annoying. Without those, characters can buy skills that represent what they're doing - if the GM makes you climb mountains all the time, it makes sense to put ranks in Climb.
Quote from: two_fishes;388098So again, why not ditch take-20 and take-10 and replace them with "say yes"? What gets lost by doing that? Perhaps this is the reason the rule gets forgotten or pushed aside.
Say "yes" when? At what point do I actually then engage the skill system. The Take 10/Take 20 rule is "say yes", you're just either missing that or willfully ignoring it. It says, "Say yes until these certain conditions occur, then use the skill system." Honestly, this shit ain't rocket science. I think it might get overlooked because we are conditioned to roll the damn dice for everything all the time. On the flip side, I don't wanna just "say yes". I don't run/play wish fulfillment power-trip shit or bullshit amateur psychotherapy, I run games. I'm not trying to collaborate on a novel, or looking to create some kind of lame ass narrative (even though that might happen anyway sometimes), I'm playing a game. I want a skill system, one that requires rolling sometimes even, just not all the time, or even so often it gets in the way of the other aspects of the game, hence my support for the Take 10/20 rule, and similar rules/guidelines in other games. It's simple, clear, and effective.
Quote from: Benoist;388129Maybe you, but that's not the case of every DM, is it? Some other DM might just write down DCs in a note book, or directly on the map of a dungeon. I don't see how that possibility is more theoretical than yours? So the scenario under which you just assigned fixed DCs for stuff that don't change over the course of a campaign isn't more theoretical than you assigning a DC according to the PCs levels on the fly. I just don't see it.
The difference to me is philosophical: in one case (fixed DCs) the universe is what it is and the PCs deal with it in different ways at different levels, whereas in the other case (DCs determined according to the PCs level) the world revolves around the PCs, and somehow matches their capabilities all the time, even retroactively (the wall I climbed two levels ago is suddenly harder for me to climb).
To be fair here, I've never seen the 4e system that way anyway. The scaling DCs to me represent keeping the difficulty static with characters that scale, not making things more difficult for higher levels than for lower ones. Not having extensive experience with 4e, I'm not sure how well it succeeds at this, but to me the system is saying that despite the DC being 12 for a low level character, and higher for the higher level one, the actual chance of the character climbing the wall (in other words, the statistical probability) stays relatively the same.
Quote from: Sigmund;388526Not having extensive experience with 4e, I'm not sure how well it succeeds at this, but to me the system is saying that despite the DC being 12 for a low level character, and higher for the higher level one, the actual chance of the character climbing the wall (in other words, the statistical probability) stays relatively the same.
There's a table for climbing difficulties on page 182 of the PHB. Uneven surfaces (cave wall) are DC 15; rough surfaces (brick wall) are DC 20. +5 DC for a slippery surface, +5 DC for an unusually smooth surface. No signs of scaling based on level.
Quote from: Thanlis;388531There's a table for climbing difficulties on page 182 of the PHB. Uneven surfaces (cave wall) are DC 15; rough surfaces (brick wall) are DC 20. +5 DC for a slippery surface, +5 DC for an unusually smooth surface. No signs of scaling based on level.
Ok, there ya go. Honestly, while it's not my favorite genre, I have to admit that the way CoC handles skills is still my all-time favorite. It has always made sense to me.
CoC does very many things right. :)
Quote from: Sigmund;388526To be fair here, I've never seen the 4e system that way anyway. The scaling DCs to me represent keeping the difficulty static with characters that scale, not making things more difficult for higher levels than for lower ones. Not having extensive experience with 4e, I'm not sure how well it succeeds at this, but to me the system is saying that despite the DC being 12 for a low level character, and higher for the higher level one, the actual chance of the character climbing the wall (in other words, the statistical probability) stays relatively the same.
Well I also have to be fair here: the post you quoted here was in direct response to AM's claim that somehow fixed DCs come from an alternate theoretical universe but that in the "real world" DMs just make up DCs to stick to the PCs' power level:
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388126So it depends. If a character can climb a wall, and you've established a DC for that specific wall, the answer as far as I'm concerned is that DC should be set in stone for all eternity. It's DC 12 at 1st level, it's still DC 12 at 20th level. So if you go up to the point where you don't have to roll, thats fine.
ok, so that's the theoretical universe. But in reality, when you play, you don't always remember what DCs have been set for which tasks, in whatever places. So that's how you establish a standard baseline DC to stuff that you would normally assign DCs for.
My post wasn't about 4e specifically.
It was about this notion that somehow fixed DCs aren't used in the "real world", which to me is bogus.
Quote from: Benoist;388626It was about this notion that somehow fixed DCs aren't used in the "real world", which to me is bogus.
Some people like to argue (for days, and bitterly) whether "in reality" Superman is stronger than Captain Marvel. They can point to this issue of this comic or that issue of the other comic, and cite this reference or that one.
The real deciding factor is
who is writing the story. Because Superman and Captain Marvel
aren't real. And it would probably be a good idea for people to just realize this. Sometimes Superman goofs up or trips on the rug. Sometimes Captain Marvel (despite the wisdom of Solomon) forgets some simple clue.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Any given Sunday". It comes from football, which is played (mainly) on Sunday. The full adage goes "on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team", meaning that a weaker team still has a chance against a stronger opponent. A related sports phrase is "you have to play the games (to determine the outcome)".
So I think that sometimes the DCs change, because the story is important. Mathematical models will only take you so far.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388632The real deciding factor is who is writing the story. Because Superman and Captain Marvel aren't real. And it would probably be a good idea for people to just realize this.
Like I said: different philosophies. My games aren't about "writing stories". You shifting the goalposts between some [fixed DCs = theory; scaled DCs = reality] bullshit to what you're saying now [the story matters moar!] isn't going to change my mind a bit. For me, your post amounts to a load of narrative crap. It's alright. You're obviously having fun playing your story games. By all means, keep doing so. Don't expect me to enjoy the same things as you do, though. :)
Quote from: Benoist;388626Well I also have to be fair here: the post you quoted here was in direct response to AM's claim that somehow fixed DCs come from an alternate theoretical universe but that in the "real world" DMs just make up DCs to stick to the PCs' power level:
My post wasn't about 4e specifically.
It was about this notion that somehow fixed DCs aren't used in the "real world", which to me is bogus.
I see your point.
Quote from: Sigmund;388525Say "yes" when? At what point do I actually then engage the skill system. The Take 10/Take 20 rule is "say yes", you're just either missing that or willfully ignoring it. It says, "Say yes until these certain conditions occur, then use the skill system." Honestly, this shit ain't rocket science. I think it might get overlooked because we are conditioned to roll the damn dice for everything all the time. On the flip side, I don't wanna just "say yes". I don't run/play wish fulfillment power-trip shit or bullshit amateur psychotherapy, I run games. I'm not trying to collaborate on a novel, or looking to create some kind of lame ass narrative (even though that might happen anyway sometimes), I'm playing a game. I want a skill system, one that requires rolling sometimes even, just not all the time, or even so often it gets in the way of the other aspects of the game, hence my support for the Take 10/20 rule, and similar rules/guidelines in other games. It's simple, clear, and effective.
The thing is, the GM has complete control over the game world. So the rules say, "A ledge that is a foot wide requires a DC 12 check" (note: I have no idea if that number is accurate, I pulled it out of my ass for the sake of argument), but the GM has control over whether the ledge is a foot wide, 5 feet wide, or an inch wide. So the take-10 rule is still just the GM either saying yes or demanding a role, it's just providing some parameters to describe the world when he wants to demand a roll.
And something is still bugging me about take-10, because it's not "say yes" to everybody, just "say yes" to some people. But if there are consequences to a failed roll, then everyone should have to roll, regardless of the character's skill number--everyone should be subject to the risk, it's simply a smaller risk for the more competent characters. And if the consequences are trivial, then no one should have to roll because who cares? Just say yes to everyone, and describe how the less competent characters have to struggle a little bit more.
So my feeling is still, if you have a situation where some characters can skip the roll and take-10, i.e. a situation where the consequences of failure are trivial, then just "say yes" for everyone. If you have a situation where rolling matters, where there is a consequence of failure, then make everyone roll. You say we're conditioned to roll the damn dice for everything. Well I think take-10 is a part of that conditioning. It encourages DMs to slap a DC on every damn thing the PCs might try instead of saving the rolls for when it really matters.
Quote from: Benoist;388650Like I said: different philosophies. My games aren't about "writing stories". You shifting the goalposts between some [fixed DCs = theory; scaled DCs = reality] bullshit to what you're saying now [the story matters moar!] isn't going to change my mind a bit. For me, your post amounts to a load of narrative crap. It's alright. You're obviously having fun playing your story games. By all means, keep doing so. Don't expect me to enjoy the same things as you do, though. :)
I have no interest in converting or convincing you to enjoy anything. I'm not sure people like you really can experience this kind of enjoyment, since gaming for you mostly seems to be a matter of meeting all of the approved goalposts that you have variously set for yourself.
Also, this isn't about "story-games" and I know your real goal is to somehow associate this with the forgies and somehow tarnish it, but take it from me, we are not talking about the same things-- the forgies aren't wrong because they use the word "story". They are wrong for other reasons. All great games have a great storyline of the things that take place during the game.
If the players get together later and reminisce about "remember that one time when we _____ (fought the dragon, Kyle fell in the pit and the golem fell on top, we had to play chess against the scarecrow king..), thats a story.
The forgies pervert that concept into a very rigid structure that ONLY emphasizes events that answer a central moral question (which they mischaracterize as a "premise") and hopefully revel in some realistic wretchedness on the side so that the players can fully
immerse (yes, they do use that word) in misery tourism.
I'm talking about adventure, and at it's core- an adventure
is a story. When characters are going places and doing stuff, that's a story. That's what players remember, that's how DM's plan out a nights encounters.
I still think stories matter. What happens during an adventure matters. Characterization, turn of events, action, conflict, all of that stuff matters, it all draws interest and generates excitement. And it isn't "written" by any particular single person, or even "told" by the DM and handed down to the players. It's participative. It happens as the adventure plays out.
And I guess, "answering moral questions" probably isn't exactly off the platter but it definitely isn't a priority, and certainly doesn't define what gets to be called a story and what doesn't.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388632Some people like to argue (for days, and bitterly) whether "in reality" Superman is stronger than Captain Marvel. They can point to this issue of this comic or that issue of the other comic, and cite this reference or that one.
The real deciding factor is who is writing the story. Because Superman and Captain Marvel aren't real. And it would probably be a good idea for people to just realize this. Sometimes Superman goofs up or trips on the rug. Sometimes Captain Marvel (despite the wisdom of Solomon) forgets some simple clue.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Any given Sunday". It comes from football, which is played (mainly) on Sunday. The full adage goes "on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team", meaning that a weaker team still has a chance against a stronger opponent. A related sports phrase is "you have to play the games (to determine the outcome)".
So I think that sometimes the DCs change, because the story is important. Mathematical models will only take you so far.
Every game and gamemaster is different.
To me, consistency in the game world forces more in-game logic. If the world is changing because of the story, the players will find the world less believable. I don['t care about the modelling.
Quote from: LordVreeg;388691Every game and gamemaster is different.
To me, consistency in the game world forces more in-game logic. If the world is changing because of the story, the players will find the world less believable. I don['t care about the modelling.
Why do you assume that if the number to a skill check changes that means the world has changed?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388693Why do you assume that if the number to a skill check changes that means the world has changed?
Shifting the goal posts again.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388693Why do you assume that if the number to a skill check changes that means the world has changed?
Well, that is a good, honest question.
To me, the DC means 'difficulty class'. this defines how hard a task is, based on the physics engine/ruleset of the GM. Lifting an object with a fixed weight is an example, like a dumbell. If it gets harder to lift, something has changed.
Quote from: two_fishes;388683The thing is, the GM has complete control over the game world. So the rules say, "A ledge that is a foot wide requires a DC 12 check" (note: I have no idea if that number is accurate, I pulled it out of my ass for the sake of argument), but the GM has control over whether the ledge is a foot wide, 5 feet wide, or an inch wide. So the take-10 rule is still just the GM either saying yes or demanding a role, it's just providing some parameters to describe the world when he wants to demand a roll.
This assumes that the GM is creating that ledge with that specific character's skill bonus in mind.
QuoteAnd something is still bugging me about take-10, because it's not "say yes" to everybody, just "say yes" to some people. But if there are consequences to a failed roll, then everyone should have to roll, regardless of the character's skill number--everyone should be subject to the risk,
You seem to be slipping in "everyone should be subject to the risk" as an unexamined premise. Why should that be true, exactly?
Let's take a non-skill example: One of the PCs is currently using
boots of flying. Now, a pit trap opens up under the PCs. The guy who's flying is obviously immune to the risk of the pit. Does that mean that the other PCs shouldn't fall into the pit?
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388689If the players get together later and reminisce about "remember that one time when we _____ (fought the dragon, Kyle fell in the pit and the golem fell on top, we had to play chess against the scarecrow king..), thats a story.
(...)
I'm talking about adventure, and at it's core- an adventure is a story. When characters are going places and doing stuff, that's a story. That's what players remember, that's how DM's plan out a nights encounters.
Game sessions are made up of a series of events. Any series of events can be turned into a story. Which means that any game session can be told as a story.
But that doesn't mean that you need to prep plots.
From Don't Prep Plots (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/prep-scenario.html):
If you're GMing a roleplaying game, you should never prep a plot.
Everyone's tastes are different. These matters are subjective. What works for one person won't necessarily work for another. Yada, yada, yada.
But, seriously, don't prep plots.
First, a definition of terms: A plot is the sequence of events in a story.
And the problem with trying to prep a plot for an RPG is that you're attempting to pre-determine events that have not yet happened. Your gaming session is not a story -- it is a happening. It is something about which stories can be told, but in the genesis of the moment it is not a tale being told. It is a fact that is transpiring.
The mistake you're making is assuming that the only way an interesting story can be told about a gaming session is if the GM prepares that story in advance. In my experience, the exact opposite is true (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/talesfromthetable/khunbaral.html).
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388699This assumes that the GM is creating that ledge with that specific character's skill bonus in mind.
Not really. It assumes the GM wants to demand a skill roll and slap a DC on it. He can demand any DC he likes and then look to the rules for a description of that DC.
However I do think that, yeah, any good GM is almost certainly tailoring the DCs he presents to the skills of his players. When the game text applies specific colour to specific DCs it is simply him some idea what those challenges should look like.
QuoteYou seem to be slipping in "everyone should be subject to the risk" as an unexamined premise. Why should that be true, exactly?
Let's take a non-skill example: One of the PCs is currently using boots of flying. Now, a pit trap opens up under the PCs. The guy who's flying is obviously immune to the risk of the pit. Does that mean that the other PCs shouldn't fall into the pit?
Okay, that's a valid question. You could say that one of the things a player is buying when they spend their skill points is exemption from some risks. Looking at it that way removes some of my objection to take-10, definitely.
@Justin: Quoting Abyssal Maw: "I still think stories matter. What happens during an adventure matters. Characterization, turn of events, action, conflict, all of that stuff matters, it all draws interest and generates excitement. And it isn't "written" by any particular single person, or even "told" by the DM and handed down to the players. It's participative. It happens as the adventure plays out. "
He may be wrong, but at least address what he's actually said.
Quote from: two_fishes;388704However I do think that, yeah, any good GM is almost certainly tailoring the DCs he presents to the skills of his players.
That would be rather difficult in my current campaign, which features more than three dozen PCs of radically varying power levels all exploring the same chunk of territory.
Which is an extreme example, but the same logic applies to any group of PCs with disparate abilities.
And more generally, what I'm talking about is a fundamental divide in design philosophy:
(1) You think that the ledge should be designed so that the PCs can climb it. If it's too difficult for the PCs to climb, why is the ledge there?
(2) I think the ledge is a ledge. If the PCs are skilled enough to climb it, then they can climb it. If they aren't, then they can't. If they're somewhere inbetween, then it's risky to climb on that ledge.
This is similar to the dynamic scaling in
Oblivion: When the ledges of the universe scale themselves to the PCs who happen to be looking at them, it flattens the game world.
An unclimbable ledge is a goal that can be achieved. A ledge that some can climb and others can't creates a strategically complex environment (particularly once you add NPCs into the same environment).
I suspect, based on what you've said in this thread so far, that you're likely to say that all of those things require you tailor the DCs to match the PCs.
And I'm saying that they don't: I just designed a ledge. I don't know how the PCs are going to use it. They might ignore it. They might climb on it. They might send a scout across it while the others circle around or wait for a rope to be thrown back. They might cast a spell so that they can fly past it. They might use a
stone shape to widen the ledge.
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;388707@Justin: Quoting Abyssal Maw: "I still think stories matter. What happens during an adventure matters. Characterization, turn of events, action, conflict, all of that stuff matters, it all draws interest and generates excitement. And it isn't "written" by any particular single person, or even "told" by the DM and handed down to the players. It's participative. It happens as the adventure plays out. "
I fully admit that I may be misreading AM, but the interpretation I'm taking away from the totality of his message is that the DM's job is to pre-design a story and the players participate with characterization, et al. within the structure of that story.
My point stands.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388703Game sessions are made up of a series of events. Any series of events can be turned into a story. Which means that any game session can be told as a story.
But that doesn't mean that you need to prep plots.
From Don't Prep Plots (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/prep-scenario.html):
If you're GMing a roleplaying game, you should never prep a plot.
Everyone's tastes are different. These matters are subjective. What works for one person won't necessarily work for another. Yada, yada, yada.
But, seriously, don't prep plots.
First, a definition of terms: A plot is the sequence of events in a story.
And the problem with trying to prep a plot for an RPG is that you're attempting to pre-determine events that have not yet happened. Your gaming session is not a story -- it is a happening. It is something about which stories can be told, but in the genesis of the moment it is not a tale being told. It is a fact that is transpiring.
The mistake you're making is assuming that the only way an interesting story can be told about a gaming session is if the GM prepares that story in advance. In my experience, the exact opposite is true (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/talesfromthetable/khunbaral.html).
It's hilarious how you quote your own blog as authoritative.
Anyhow, I never said any such thing. I don't actually predetermine events or plots, and I leave plenty of room open for how encounters can turn out.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;388720I fully admit that I may be misreading AM, but the interpretation I'm taking away from the totality of his message is that the DM's job is to pre-design a story and the players participate with characterization, et al. within the structure of that story.
My point stands.
Cover that point with a hat. That was never what I said, think, or have ever done.
Quote from: two_fishes;388683The thing is, the GM has complete control over the game world. So the rules say, "A ledge that is a foot wide requires a DC 12 check" (note: I have no idea if that number is accurate, I pulled it out of my ass for the sake of argument), but the GM has control over whether the ledge is a foot wide, 5 feet wide, or an inch wide. So the take-10 rule is still just the GM either saying yes or demanding a role, it's just providing some parameters to describe the world when he wants to demand a roll.
Correct.
QuoteAnd something is still bugging me about take-10, because it's not "say yes" to everybody, just "say yes" to some people. But if there are consequences to a failed roll, then everyone should have to roll, regardless of the character's skill number--everyone should be subject to the risk, it's simply a smaller risk for the more competent characters. And if the consequences are trivial, then no one should have to roll because who cares? Just say yes to everyone, and describe how the less competent characters have to struggle a little bit more.
And this is where the Take 20 rule part of the rule comes in. That covers the less competent character's having "to struggle a little bit more."
QuoteSo my feeling is still, if you have a situation where some characters can skip the roll and take-10, i.e. a situation where the consequences of failure are trivial, then just "say yes" for everyone. If you have a situation where rolling matters, where there is a consequence of failure, then make everyone roll. You say we're conditioned to roll the damn dice for everything. Well I think take-10 is a part of that conditioning. It encourages DMs to slap a DC on every damn thing the PCs might try instead of saving the rolls for when it really matters.
Perhaps, but it also provides guidelines for when and how to just :say yes", and for when a less competent character is going to be needing more time. This can be helpful for newer GMs and for folks who prefer to not to have to wing stuff like this. It also helps when tracking how long things take because even if there are no immediate or impending consequences for taking longer to accomplish something, it might come into play later on, or even build up to a much larger delay of the players end up choosing to spend more time doing many different things. I have no problem with winging it if the rule system doesn't provide the guidelines like this, but I still think the this rule and similar ones in other systems are a good idea.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;388734It's hilarious how you quote your own blog as authoritative.
Yeah, really. You'd think he was quoting my blog or something.
RPGPundit