tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post5701316420968122026..comments2024-03-23T08:21:07.075-07:00Comments on Points of Light: FrankenFourth: Taking 10/20David Guyllhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-82917715224275643122016-04-23T19:31:09.759-07:002016-04-23T19:31:09.759-07:00I caught the missing "it" after I posted...I caught the missing "it" after I posted. There's no edit option.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10246244996252320388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-89718191767849533482016-04-23T18:24:46.180-07:002016-04-23T18:24:46.180-07:00Joe: It would help next time if you added some com...Joe: It would help next time if you added some commas, and DIDN'T post a giant wall of text or write like this:<br /><br />"It doesn't mean would hurt to add that to your version, letting the players know explicitly that option is available."<br /><br />Also, no need to get defensive.David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-83721070896257063302016-04-22T11:04:37.136-07:002016-04-22T11:04:37.136-07:00I said "the DM should just move on to success...I said "the DM should just move on to success as though someone would have eventually rolled a twenty..." That statement clearly assumes this should only be used in cases where 20+mods would ensure success. Clearly this wouldn't apply when a player wants to do the impossible. I think you're reading the wrong point into "if there aren't any consequences". It just adds an additional restriction on the use of the "taking 20" mechanism. Sure you can succeed eventually to jump up and reach the rope hanging just a few feet out of reach above your head, but not if it's forty feet above you, or hanging over spiked pit. Picking the lock of an unguarded cell, should be trivial for someone with the right skills, but a trapped treasure chest is a different story. Consequences for failure should mean you roll to see which of the interesting, possible outcomes result from the action. Whereas assured eventual success, or inevitable failure aren't worth taking the time to roll for at all. The GM should use the easily ascertained outcome to make pacing of the story smoother though, rather than rely on player driven mechanics that offer no narrative control. <br />Thank you for reiterating my point though. By disagreeing with something I didn't say and I also disagree with, you've probably helped me clarify my position on this topic.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10246244996252320388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-40453055459181441262016-04-22T09:56:19.861-07:002016-04-22T09:56:19.861-07:00@Joe: I disagree that if there aren't any cons...@Joe: I disagree that if there aren't any consequences for failure, that the game should just proceed as if the players had succeeded, because it's entirely possible that even 20+mods STILL isn't enough to pick a lock, find a hidden door, etc.<br /><br />The DMG doesn't even tell you to just have the characters auto-succeed: it tells you to just assume that they'd roll a 20 at some point. That's basically why I'm using the take 20 rule: you assume the players roll a 20, and from there determine the results (which can STILL be failure).David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-3998360768676422232016-04-20T12:28:14.181-07:002016-04-20T12:28:14.181-07:004e actually does have "taking 20" it'...4e actually does have "taking 20" it's not called Taking 20 in the rule books. Page 41 of the DMG describes how to handle it in the example of players searching a room. It puts the pressure on the DM to figure out when it's not really necessary to call for a roll instead of on the players to ask if they can take twenty on this check. The commentator you mentioned was right in that if there aren't any consequences for failing a check the DM should just move on to success as though someone would have eventually rolled a twenty without making the players ask specifically to do so. It doesn't mean would hurt to add that to your version, letting the players know explicitly that option is available. Whenever I've run 4e and was asked if taking twenty was an option for checks that had no negative consequences for failure, if the players could be taking a short rest I'd tell them yes, not "Sorry they took that option out of Fourth Ed. Roll a bunch of dice sucker."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10246244996252320388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-45888388694930790482016-04-16T22:23:37.941-07:002016-04-16T22:23:37.941-07:00@Panda: Almost everyone from my 3E group didn'...@Panda: Almost everyone from my 3E group didn't even know take 10 was a thing, though they did take 20 all the time when looking for secret doors, opening locks, and checking for traps.<br /><br />"Like if I took 20 to pick a lock I'd imagine my character sitting down and taking their time with their tools to get the lock to open, not turning 20 times until they it right."<br /><br />That's actually how I interpret it: when you take 20 looking for secret doors, you're carefully examining every nook and cranny for something. When you take 20 picking a lock, you're doing the safe-cracking scene from the end of Bad Santa.<br /><br />I suppose one way of quickly randomizing the time is to just roll a d20, and the result is how many "attempts" it takes before you hit the 20 mark. David Guyllhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16299128722345607123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1790030420507335953.post-3894045380801259322016-04-15T15:28:05.878-07:002016-04-15T15:28:05.878-07:00God, I wish people took 10 more often, especially ...God, I wish people took 10 more often, especially when I was DMing myself. But it seems like some players really love the idea of failing and having the game devolve into slapstick comedy :/ Others just think that's how the game is supposed to work...<br /><br />Anyway, the only issue I (and others I know) had with taking 20 is the idea that you're doing something 20 times until you do your best seems kinda silly. Like if I took 20 to pick a lock I'd imagine my character sitting down and taking their time with their tools to get the lock to open, not turning 20 times until they it right. Maybe if the rule were it takes the exact number of turns of the lowest possible roll to suceed, or double that to emphasize taking time. I had the idea once that maybe it would take 1d20 rounds, but... I dunno, 4e got rid of take 10/20, and it didn't come back in 5e so I haven't thought of it much since :IDanny S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17720942915398552430noreply@blogger.com