About skills, their systems and how they're used.... (digression from another thread)

[Narf the Mouse]

!
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.

[Bloody Stupid Johnson]

No probs.

Just goes to show what Sigmund said, its like they're the lost rules.

[jhkim]

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...

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."

[Bloody Stupid Johnson]

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."

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")?

[Sigmund]

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."

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?

[Sigmund]

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")?

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?

[Abyssal Maw]

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?

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.

[Spinachcat]

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.

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.

My 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.

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.

This is a very good point.   Players like to roll dice and experience the risk of success / failure.

[Sigmund]

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).

[two_fishes]

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?

[Bloody Stupid Johnson]

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?

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".

[Sigmund]

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".

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.

[Justin Alexander]

I 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.

And 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.

[Soylent Green]

EDIT: 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.

[flyingmice]

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.

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