Take 10/20 hate

[Kaelik]

And now that we've established that, like I said, it needs to be limited in some way, I'm curious if there are any guidelines for these limitations.

No, it doesn't need any limitations other than the restrictions in place. Stop being retarded.

Granted, 'take 20' is already a very limited rule for a very limited number of skills in a very limited number of situations...what's the frequency limitation on top of that, for this great, great, rule that makes so much sense that it needs to have tons of limitations?

Hey dumb fuck. You still don't understand the rule. The rule is "In situations where you could roll 25 times to get a 20, fucking don't just say you did."

It's not a limitation to take 20 to only apply it to situations that represent the situation it's dealing with.

What you are saying right here is that the rules for creating a wall of stone are shitty because they are "limited" to only when someone casts wall of stone.

What percentage of the time should a player be allowed to take 20? Is there a percentage breakdown by skill, perhaps?

Sure, if the PCs are in a situation in which taking 20 is allowed by the rules on that skill, here's a breakdown of how much of the time they should be allowed to take 20 if they want to:

Search: 100%
Gather Information: 100%
Open Lock: 100%
Escape Artist: 100%
Handle Animal: 100%
Survival (tracking): 100%
Spot, & Listen: 100%

Now that that is out of the way, can you stop being a dumbass and trying to claim that 13% of all locks are not retryable and or that 13% of locks are retryable 20 times, but cannot have someone take 20 on them?

But would love to know if anyone's worked out any sort of optimal percentages for the great, great, rule.

Yes, one hundred fucking percent of the time that they are faced with a skill that they can apply take 20 to, and choose to do so.

Now how about you answer the fucking question:

Which of these skills: "Search, Gather Information, Open Lock, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, Survival (tracking), Spot, & Listen." Would you not allow your players to retry?

[Sashi]

Fair enough. Give an example where 'take 20' comes up (a completely worked out situation), and there's absolutely no way to improve the encounter/incident/activity/whatever so that 'take 20' couldn't have come up in the first place.

The Rogue has broken into the evil Duke's study with the task of acquiring the secret MacGuffin. He has only 5 rounds to search the entire study before the Dukesguard (who are chasing him) catch up and ganks him. He does not find the secret MacGuffin but does find a small lockbox that The Rogue spends two rounds attempting (and failing) to open. On round 5 he decides that discretion is the better part of valor and absconds to a safehouse with the lockbox before the Dukesguard descends upon him.

Safely ensconced in his hideout, The Rogue carefully examines the box. Unknown to him, the box has the following stats:
Open Lock DC 25
Trap 1: A small piece of flint and flash powder that bursts into flames and destroys the contents of the box (Search DC 28, Disable Device DC 20)
Trap 2: If the box is opened a scrying spell is triggered that let's the duke's Grand Vizier know exactly where the box is and who is tampering with it if it's opened. (Search DC 29, Disable Device 30).

The rogue has the following relevant stats:
Open Lock 10 (4 dex, 6 ranks)
Search 8 (2 int, 6 ranks)
Disable Device 10

The Rogue does not know it, but the Secret MacGuffin was not ever in the study (he has been given false information and the Duke, while evil, is not even aware that the MacGuffin exists). The lockbox actually contains a series of love letters between the Evil Duke and the Queen. Uncovering the letters progresses the story, but the story is completely able to deal with the contents being read or destroyed.

Had the Rogue managed to open the lock while in the study (he needed a 15 on the die, difficult but not impossible) and not searched for traps, he would have triggered the flames and destroyed the contents as well as alerted the Duke (which he doesn't really care about, because the Duke already knew he was in the study) but now that he is safe in the hideout he decides to take things carefully and search the box for booby traps.

With the assumption that Mr. Cavern is making the rolls behind his hand so the player can't metagame his die rolls ...

Without take 20, the player has to sit there saying "I search the box" 90 times before there is a 99% certainty that one of the search checks was his maximum possible check (losing Take 20 means the Player can't invoke statistics "Eventually I will roll a 20 on my search check"). Luckily he can disable the trap if he takes 10, and he only has to say "I disable the trap" 7 times before there's a 99% probability that one of the rolls is a 10 and he disables the device (there is also an 86% chance that he failed by 5 or more and only thinks he disabled the trap, which is why taking 10 is the better option, here, but he may think that the disable DC is 25+ and would fuck him over on a take 10). He will never in a million years find the Scrying trap, but he could possibly disable it if he knew about it. He then sits there saying "I try to open the lock", and must say it 17 times before there is a 99% chance of a 15+ coming up on the die, he then opens the lockbox, triggers the scrying spell and (depending on the success with the disable device) triggers the flames.

With take 20 this situation plays out exactly the same except the player only has to say "I take 20 searching the box" instead of saying "I search the box" 90 or so times (it's 13 tries for a 50% probability of rolling a 20). He still has to roll for disabling the trap (chance for failure on a 5 or less), but then he gets to say "I take 20" on opening the lock after taking 10 doesn't work.

So, basically, The Rogue and Mr. Cavern have not wasted a half hour of their lives on meaningless and inevitable dice rolls, and can instead get on to whether The Rogue thinks the love letters are evidence that the Evil Duke is the traitor (even without the secret MacGuffin) or if the MacGuffin was destroyed by the flame trap if The Rogue failed to disarm it. The Rogue might also decide that the love letters aren't a sign of traitorous intent, but are still good blackmail material. He also has to deal with the fact that the Evil Duke now knows exactly where he is.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Yes, taking 20 in a world of smart or far-seeing people should not have to come up at all.

But seriously though, there are DMs through inexperience/meanness/stupidity/just don't have the insight though who are just NOT AWARE of the fact that in any situation where you would logically let a PC roll 20 or more checks even if the first 19 failed you might as well just say 'hey, you rolled a twenty'.

Seriously, these things have to be spelled out. There are still some people who insist that the Wealth by Level rules do not apply for organic PCs--even though there's not a clear passage you can point to, the circumstantial evidence (example PC, NPC construction, and the fact that wealth-by-level automatically applies to pre-created PCs) suggests heavily in that direction. But with no smoking gun, DMs won't rule that way.

That's why these things need to be spelled out.

[Doom]

Impressive story, and everything works until we get to

Without take 20, the player has to sit there saying "I search the box" 90 times before there is a 99% certainty that one of the search checks was his maximum possible check (losing Take 20 means the Player can't invoke statistics "Eventually I will roll a 20 on my search check"). Luckily he can disable the trap if he takes 10, and he only has to say "I disable the trap" 7 times before there's a 99% probability that one of the rolls is a 10 and he disables the device (there is also an 86% chance that he failed by 5 or more and only thinks he disabled the trap, which is why taking 10 is the better option, here, but he may think that the disable DC is 25+ and would fuck him over on a take 10). He will never in a million years find the Scrying trap, but he could possibly disable it if he knew about it. He then sits there saying "I try to open the lock", and must say it 17 times before there is a 99% chance of a 15+ coming up on the die, he then opens the lockbox, triggers the scrying spell and (depending on the success with the disable device) triggers the flames.

See, my way, would be "in the safety of your lair, you open the box" if he disables the trap, or I'd indicate the trap going off if that's the case. The only real question is the trap, after all, and that can be resolved in a single die roll.

Note how what I said is slightly briefer than the above paragraph. It's even quicker than the below paragraph in the 'take 20' situation (note that I allow take 10s):

With take 20 this situation plays out exactly the same except the player only has to say "I take 20 searching the box" 90 or so times (it's 13 tries for a 50% probability of rolling a 20). He still has to roll for disabling the trap (chance for failure on a 5 or less), but then he gets to say "I take 20" on opening the lock after taking 10 doesn't work.

And you still have to stumble around the trap in that paragraph, the only thing that matters anyway.

The screwup here is that the only thing that matters is the little trap, so really that's the only roll worth making, the rest is just confusion.

Now it can be quite reasonably argued that since the end result is the same (even if my way is slighly quicker and more coherent), we're both using a verson of 'take 20'...but it just doesn't change the fact that it would take this convoluted a story to even have a chance of take 20 being something other than a DM not running things as smoothly as he could.

Still, I give you points for a noble effort, and will just have to agree with Lago here. That said, you've convinced me that there are some really convoluted situations where take 20 can help a DM slighly off his game (instead of completely screwed up). Thanks for that.

[Kaelik]

Hey dumbass, the part you are missing is, it's the players fucking decision. If they decide to take 20 searching for traps, that's their decision. If not, then that's also their decision.

Now, try again:

Which of these skills: "Search, Gather Information, Open Lock, Escape Artist, Handle Animal, Survival (tracking), Spot, & Listen." Would you not allow your players to retry?

[Maj]

And I have no such issue, never said I did, it's only been consisistent trolling that would lead one to believe I did....under the assumption retries are possible, I absolutely agree retries are possible. I've never argued against any such thing.

Unfortunately, no matter how many times you've responded, you have yet to demonstrate actual understanding of the rules of taking 20. Which is why we're still talking. You have some issue with the rule that no one gets, and while you keep protesting, you continually fail to demonstrate accurate knowledge of the way the rule actually works.

But now the claim is 'take 20' only rarely comes up, so back to that "only rarely" thing. How rare is it?

As rare as the DM wants it to be.

In our games, maybe twice in four hours.

Agreed, take 20 is a band-aid for DM mistakes. If take 20 comes up alot, the DM is likely either stupid or power-tripping...or just having a bad day.

What. The. Hell.

It's a DM mistake to have a situation where the players aren't pressured to do something?

And if it comes up a lot, the DM is power-tripping? Um... How is taking 20 related to a power trip at all? Taking 20 is a player option.

Fair enough. Give an example where 'take 20' comes up (a completely worked out situation), and there's absolutely no way to improve the encounter/incident/activity/whatever so that 'take 20' couldn't have come up in the first place.

Newsflash: It's unrealistic for every second of every adventure to be so hassled, hasty, threatened, whatever that a character can't sit down and devote time to using a skill.

Now it can be quite reasonably argued that since the end result is the same (even if my way is slighly quicker and more coherent), we're both using a verson of 'take 20'...but it just doesn't change the fact that it would take this convoluted a story to even have a chance of take 20 being something other than a DM not running things as smoothly as he could.

Um... This isn't a convoluted story. Stuff like this happens in our games all the time. The whole idea of taking an item back home with you where you can dedicate time to it isn't weird at all.

Quite clearly you missed what I said a couple pages back:

It's not 'stupidity' to toss 'take 20' when it leads to automatic success.

IF you also counterpoint this with something akin to, "You try to open the chest, but it's just too difficult for you," then I'm totally willing to say that it sounds like you use the take 20 rule all the time, but saying "you take 20" or having the players say "I take 20" is somehow a problem.

The thing to watch out for here, though, is making player decisions for them. The difference between what you're saying and having a player declare that they take 20 is an issue of control. And while your players might not have a problem with it, sometimes there's a subtle railroading that happens. When you describe a given situation, you narrow down the possibilities that the players come up with on their own.

Saying something like, "You come across a chest that's too hard to open," implicitly states that they tried to open it. And it's possible that maybe they wouldn't have tried (for whatever reason). Further, it gives the suggestion that maybe there's a reason that they should try, when a perfectly acceptable alternate use of the chest may be to prop one of those oh-no-it's-closing secret doors open.

[erik]

*sigh* I think there's only two ways for Doom's contributions in this thread to not be a net negative impact on the sanity and intelligence of readers. Either he becomes an hero, or gets put on ignore.

If someone cannot grasp such a simple concept over this many pages of varied explanations, then it ain't gonna happen. It's either intentional trolling or some deeper cognitive disconnect that may only be curable through taking a daily multi-vitamin or a community college course in critical thinking.

[ubernoob]

Question: How can you take 20 on spot/listen? Are you just talking about see through the disguise/hear the plot clue in the dungeon?

[TarkisFlux]

Question: How can you take 20 on spot/listen? Are you just talking about see through the disguise/hear the plot clue in the dungeon?

Magic eye paintings. You can take 20 to see the sail boats or whatever.

[Sashi]

See, my way, would be "in the safety of your lair, you open the box" if he disables the trap, or I'd indicate the trap going off if that's the case. The only real question is the trap, after all, and that can be resolved in a single die roll.

NO you dumb shit.

"In the safety of your lair, you open the box" is the take 20 rule. Numeric possibility of success + enough time to make a statistically significant number of tries + no chance that those tries can fail = auto success = Take 20 even if nobody involved says "I take 20". If you are not allowed to use the take 20 rule, then the player has to sit there saying "I try to open the box" and rolling a fucking die until he succeeds or (in the case of Search and Disable Device, where he's not actually allowed to see the result of the die roll) -2/log[(21-TN)*.05] (where TN is the target number on the die needed) times to be 99% sure the die came up TN+ (and TN=20 if the player doesn't know the DC).

You don't get to say "I just let them succeed if success is inevitable." like it's some fucking elegant revelation or even an alternate option to Take 20 because that is what take 20 is.

[Sashi]

Question: How can you take 20 on spot/listen? Are you just talking about see through the disguise/hear the plot clue in the dungeon?

Magic eye paintings. You can take 20 to see the sail boats or whatever.

Or trying to see some far away, barely visible, but basically stationary object, like ships on the horizon or mountain climbers nearing the peak or whatever.

[Doom]

If someone cannot grasp such a simple concept over this many pages of varied explanations, then it ain't gonna happen. It's either intentional trolling or some deeper cognitive disconnect that may only be curable through taking a daily multi-vitamin or a community college course in critical thinking.

Agreed; not sure why it's been so hard to explain, but...good luck on you finding such a course.

[Ice9]

See, my way, would be "in the safety of your lair, you open the box" if he disables the trap, or I'd indicate the trap going off if that's the case. The only real question is the trap, after all, and that can be resolved in a single die roll.

So basically, you're saying that you do not let people retry Search when looking for traps. In which case it would not be eligible for "Take 20" anyway, because that only applies to skills that can be retried.

If you did let people retry, but did not allow "Take 20", then there would not be "a single die roll", because the player would try searching a large number of times, so as to make a high roll probable.

[RobbyPants]

I can't even tell if Doom is being serious or not anymore. Either he doesn't understand how taking 20 actually works, or he thinks that because a DM can determine if and when a skill can't be retried that the rules somehow don't work, or he's trolling. I really can't tell anymore.

I'm done trying to talk to him on this issue. It's not like I sit across from him at a gaming table, so I don't know why I even care if he understands this.

[Kaelik]

Hint hint Doom. If every single person in the entire thread thinks you don't understand the issue, maybe you don't understand the issue.

Which is more likely, that one person is dumb, and can't understand the issue, or that every single person in the thread is dumb, and can't understand you.

Literally every single person can see that you are retardedly wrong. Believe it or not, Maj, Robby, Ice9, Sashi, Tarxis Flux, erik, Lago, and Virgil are not all my sock puppets.

Literally every single person in this thread thinks you are stupid or trolling. That's not because they misunderstand you, it's because you are wrong.

[Draco_Argentum]

*sigh* I think there's only two ways for Doom's contributions in this thread to not be a net negative impact on the sanity and intelligence of readers. Either he becomes an hero, or gets put on ignore.

Guys, you took 20 trying to explain this to Doom (probably more than once) and didn't succeed. That DC is just too high.

[Username17]

I've got an idea. How about Doom gives a checklist of how he thinks the Take 20 rule works. Seriously, just give a list of what you would check or do in order to have a Take 20 occur and resolve, and then we can figure out where you are wrong.

Because you are wrong, but talking in isolated quips makes it impossible for other people to figure out how you are wrong. And thus, the discussion is not moving forward.

-Username17

[Doom]

*scratches head* Fine, let's go step by step.

In reference to 3e/.5 or a nearly identical rules set, I believe Take 20 should be allowed (i.e., the player can say "I take 20", learning deterministically whether or not a particular action is within his skill level and that he's performed to the best of his ability) when

1) retries are allowed (without 'penalty' for failure)
2) for the skills specified as allowed,
3) subject to common sense considerations (eg, a time factor)
4) subject to DM fiat (depending on what is considered a penalty, or how much is too much time, etc, or just pure fiat)


I think this is what is necessary for Take 20 to be allowed...what's the detail I'm missing?

[Sashi]

Order of operation. The DM decides if the situation allows retries and if there's enough time to try at least 20 times, then the players decide if they'd like to take 20 (which is shorthand for "I apply statistics").

The DM can't fiat "you can't take 20, giant frog" because the players can just physically retry by rolling the dice over and over. But he can fiat "you don't have enough time to take 20" or "you can only try once because giant frog" and that's fine.

[Doom]

Actually, I kinda figured rule 0 always comes first (or even before first, hence the name of 'rule 0').

But, in terms of a checklist, as DM, that's the order I'd go for consideration...in my book, arbitrary fiat should be the last, or nearly the last, reason to keep a player from doing something.

But, is that it, that's all, nothing else?

[Sashi]

It's a pretty big reason. Not allowing take 20 even after you've declared retry: yes and given them enough time is the chest high wall or rocket proof door of the RPG world because you're literally saying "I am too lazy to even give a reasonable explanation for why you can't do this."

Moreover, your previous statements of "I wouldn't use Take 20 here, I would just tell them they succeed since it's inevitable" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of words, in the same way saying "I wouldn't use an electric screwdriver here, I'd use a screwdriver with an electric motor turning it."

[Doom]

So you've got me answering a slightly different question than what Frank asked (at least, I believe his question is to provide a checklist for what factors go into deciding if I say "sure" after a player says "Can I take 20?"). It's not rule 0, you got confused by agreeing with that. You believe players should only ask at step 2.5 (i.e., between steps 2 and 3 in my process)...in a perfect world, sure, but the bottom line is players are going to ask when they ask, a checklist is still necessary to determine if the take 20 should be allowed.

you've declared retry: yes and given them enough time

And now comes your step 2.5, as near as I can tell.

Ok, so for you, it's real important, after they've tried to pick the lock (for example), for me to say "you guys can retry as much as you like and there's nothing to stop you", for me to sit, stare at the players, and wait for the player to say "I take 20", before continuing on with the actual game, like some sort of religious ritual.

Moreover, you find it deeply offensive for me, instead, after they've already tried to pick the lock, to say "you can open it eventually if you want to", or, if it's clear that they want to (and it's usually obvious since they like, just tried), to say "you open it eventually" or "you're confident you can't open it" when it doesn't obligate them to a significant amount of time, and nothing else can happen in the campaign until they've resolved that lock in any event.

I accept your way of doing things...but often I see no need to spend time staring at players when, well, there's only one thing to do anyway. For the sake of argument, let's just pretend that when I'm in a 'take 20' situation at the table that I play it your way, ok?

Obviously, in some sense, the end result is the same...is the ritual really that important to you?

Now can we actually talk about "take 20" as a rule?

[Lago PARANOIA]

Moreover, you find it deeply offensive for me, instead, after they've already tried to pick the lock, to say "you can open it eventually if you want to",

Yes, actually, because it obfuscates the fact whether the player succeeded because of their own skill or because the DM said that they succeeded. This is seriously the kind of thing that can start fights and cause people to decline to come back on your games. If I was a rogue trying to open a chest with a lock DC of 30 and I had a +8 bonus and then I found out that the DM said 'you can pick the lock on that thing eventually' I would be pretty cheesed.

Here's the rub, Doom: TAKING TWENTY DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU WILL SUCCEED ON THE TASK.

[Doom]

Uh, I wrote

"you're confident you can't open it"

From this it should be clear that I mean it's possible they can't succeed at the task. Anyway, sorry that was a little unclear, should have mentioned both possibilities both times (I've since edited that post, but kept that part the same, but edited the rest so as not to confuse the person I'm responding to). . I feel like I have be ridiculously clear here, with confusion so easily generated from nothing. But, honest, yeah, take 20 doesn't guarantee success, like I've said before quite a few times, and, well, obviously.

Back to the original question: do I have the process right? (Do note in the process I also indicate the possibility of the task being beyond the player's skill. It's these insane little nitpicks that are making it so hard to have an actual conversation here.)

But, I feel I've explained why I've written the checklist the way I have, understanding that players might ask at any point in that, but I would still need to go through the list to be certain.

Is there another claimed error in that decision making process?

[Kaelik]

Doom, stop being stupid. Frank didn't ask what you would write if you were writing the take 20 rule (Because we already know that would be stupid) he asked what you think the rule actually fucking is.

Which brings me to the part of your stupid explanantion.

We of the rules centric player focused gaming den believe that the rules are the only way for players to actually understand the world, and make choices about it. Every time you pull out DM fiat is exactly like if all the laws of physics stopped being true for a few seconds. It's bad shit.

So when you want to arbitrarily limit things based on no reason at all, and specifically things that PCs can never figure out, and not even give them the choice to decide if they want to take 20.

That's you being a giant asshat that needs to die.

So stop doing that.