Anyone here d20 savvy? I need help.

[machfront]

Because I don't wanna join yet another forum just to ask a question. So, I hope someone here might know. (I would ask at Dragonsfoot, but a d20 question will bring out those who despise 3.x ed., and that game is understandably off-limits there.)

A while back a guy wrote up a boiled-down version of d20 called MicroLite20. It's really cool, actually, but having no use for it I wasn't all that interested.

Recently, I thought I could actually make use of it as a way to use SpyCraft 2.0, only not as massively rules-heavy. So, I went in search, hoping someone may had tackled d20 Modern in MicroLite way. They had. Even better, one fellow at the M20 forums wrote up SpyLite. A M20 version of SpyCraft. "Yea!", says I.

Now, I played D&D 3rd ed. for a few sessions back in '01 before me and my friends 'laughed it out of the room'. I recall these rules being part of the game, but I never took much heed (I wasn't DMing.)

Take 10 and Take 20.

My question is:
What the heck?

I'm not confused by the mechanics. It's very straightforward and simple.
Not under pressure? Instead of rolling, you assume the roll is 10 and apply your applicable skill and attribute bonuses.

Have all the right tools and manuals and good lighting and no stress and weeks or months to accomplish the task? Instead of rolling, you assume the roll is 20, plus your bonuses,etc.

Ok. Fine.
Still. What the F?

Who in their right mind would roll when there's a 50% or greater chance of failure in the right circumstance when they could just "take 10". Obviously, you'd only do it when the character is able and if the 10 would guarantee a success.
Same with taking 20.
If you're going to risk failure with anything less than 20 or with rolling, say, lower than 18, then again....who in their right mind wouldn't "take 20"?

Therefore, all these rules do, practically speaking, is essentially say that "If you can, you do."
That's it.
For some reason the d20 system actually needed a rule to say that? For players to say, "I've got all the stuff I need to do it and all the time in the world, so I succeed."
I don't think I need to say that a fair GM could have done this with no rule whatsoever.

Take 20 actually makes more sense to me than Take 10. If you had a very low or no skill rank and/or no or a low attribute bonus, but had plenty of time and so on, and a roll of 20 or near 20 would guarantee success, then "taking 20" sorta comes to your rescue, giving a PC the heroic benefit of the doubt.

See, I'm used to the old-school method and assumption, and this is true with regards to T&T's SR, that unless there's a darn good chance of failure, the PC is successful. It's only when there's a decent amount of doubt in the success that an attribute check/skill roll/Saving Roll/whatever is needed.

What makes this more confusing is this: (and I don't know if this is a SpyLite thing, or if this is true with all/most d20-based games)

A skill roll is: d20 + skill rank + applicable stat bonus + situational modifiers.

Situational modifiers.
Situational modifiers?
Oh. You mean, like...if the PC has all the right tools, blueprints, attitude, help, time and stuff? Gee.
So, wait.
Situational modifiers...except when there's lotsa time and the character isn't under duress?
Again...what's the point of taking 10 or 20, then?

If situational modifiers (part of GM fiat) apply, then wouldn't the GM give a bonus to the relative ease of the situation? And wouldn't that make Take 10 and Take 20 redundant?

Maybe I'm being reactionary, but this just really smells like someone wrote a rule that says: "Psst. Hey. Player. You don't have to trust the referee. You don't need him to tell you that you succeed. You can tell him. Here's a rule for that, just so he knows....cuz...ya know... all GMs are out ta get ya. They're evil and they want your lovingly constructed character made of pure awesome-sauce to fail and die and they don't want you to have fun. Well, no more of that. Here. Fun. Have some."

I mean, am I missing some strange bit of subtlety to the d20 mechanics overall?
I truly can't see much use for these rules or what actual purpose, mechanically and practically, they serve.

Can anyone give me some insight?

[machfront]

Oh, and in case anyone's curious...links.

SpyLite 2.0
Microlite20

[Hogscape]

Gawsh... I actually have a d20 book somewhere (Star Wars Saga) and it does make reference to this issue Machfront... I will did it out tomorrow.

From dim and distant memory, my understanding of the 'take 10' is that it's used in a low-pressure situation where given your other bonuses, a 10 is all you need for a basic success. So rather than risk an embarrassing gaff at the After Party, you just 'take 10'. Maybe?

[feldrik]

I always thiught it was bizar as well. I think it makes more sense when you run everything By the Book(tm) and the Right Way(tm).

D&D is a miniatures tactics game that assumes you will have the minis and map and books and time and everything. So taking 10 or 20 is to be timed out in game and the appropriate wandering monster rolls are to be made.
Again, I see no need for a rule on this. If the players dawdle and delay so they can metagame and have every skill check suceed then a GM that is interested in an exciting game session will spice things up.
The old school method of metagaming this was the player rolling dice until they suceed...I am still trying to break one player of that habit.

[jongjungbu]

They're all good points, machfront. A good GM can take all of that into consideration and not worry with it. Pre d20 (like AD&D 2.5 and back), there was no explicit Take 10/20 that I can recall. But that didn't stop anyone from saying, "Okay you have such high Pick Locks we'll just say you succeed cause you would eventually get the roll and we only have 2 hrs to session this adventure". But it wasn't ever explicitly mentioned in the rules, and you have people who are so by the book that I believe this is the reason that it was so delineated in d20, and plus for new players. I could go back and look but I'd much rather look through my T&T rulebooks instead heheh.

Again, situational modifiers, same deal. That modifier is really GM discretion. That is much less a no brainer, because the way the skill system is setup with standard difficulty tiers, it simplifies adjustments for the GM. They can just say "You have such and such effect giving you a +/- X to your DC". The player will already know by then what the expected roll will be, no surprises, and just awaits the GM's modifier. It's more of a standardization I guess. But in this case, it's not always going to be a Take 10/20 situation. This may be attempting to trip a monster in battle, and so there is not going to be a Take 10/20 and you can still have situational modifiers here against their typical DC.

I know, it's not rocket science that you can modify the roll for various factors, but d20 was suppose to be a way to introduce new GMs and new players to the world of pnp RPGs so they approach it from a 'for dummies' guide point of view. In the case of the situational modifiers, if you've never played d20 before, how do you know you can modify the DC with a situational modifier? They tell you that you can basically. And again, we're talking about situations here where you are not going to Take 10/20. And in cases where you ARE going to Take 10/20, even for the experienced player, it's a quick way to tell if you could actually succeed.

There are a few situations where Take 10/20 is great. If your skill bonuses are 7, and you Take 20 on a conversation Bluff check (no pressure you're just lying in casual conversation), and the DC is 30, you fail. If you already know the DC you might know not to try it cause you know you are guaranteed to fail. Maybe you don't know the DC (GM doesn't tell you), but you attempt it...it's a very nice way, a quick way, of finding out the result without having to roll at all in a situation where there is a chance of failure. He takes 20, gets a 27, fails vs DC 30. GM determines results. He could have rolled but no matter what he would have failed so why bother rolling. Let's say the DC was 25, he would automatically succeed. GM discretion here, will he make the player roll for it or just let him Take 20, because in one way he will always win the other he has a good chance of failure. But he only has one chance at it...I mean if you fail to lie, that NPC is going to see through you from then on. So you would really only get one roll...and that is either going to be a real roll or a Take 20 dependent on the GM's whim.




Some hardcore players feel you should still roll because you have a chance of a critical failure or a critical success (the former more important); and these may have alternate results.

[Aramis of Erak]

In general, take 10 is how mid-level and high-level characters ignore low-difficulty tasks.

Take 10 can't be done in combat or stress. It can't be done if failure (rather than fumble) results in injury.

Since normal TN's are 15-30, and starting PC's have typically only a few skills with +5, taking 10 is a bad idea for them. However, at level 5-8, one starts simply bypassing the easier rolls most of the time.

likewise, for employment purposes, take 10 means not having to roll weekly.

Take 20 can only be done if there is no penalty for failure. In a 6mo D&D 3.0 game, it came up 3 times... 2 being research rolls. In a 6mo playtest of Traveller T20, only once was taking 20 a viable item (computer programming). Also note that take 20 also takes 20x the time, and if materials are used, 20x the materials And Jongjungbu, your example of Bluff is a case where one is NOT permitted a take 20... because you can't keep trying without penalty.

also note that Armor Class is a take 10... early playtest indicates that armor was going to be rolled; it's an option in the 3.0 DMG, still.

Take 10 was really far more useful than take 20.

[jongjungbu]

I see your point, Aramis, and stand corrected. Because of the nature of the fact that failure in my Bluff example would more than likely prevent subsequent rerolls, that would deny the Take 20.

[machfront]

I appreciate all the responses so far, gentlemen.
Yours especially, Aramis. I appreciate your clarity.

I'll admit I'm still a bit confused.

I understand that one cannot 'take' when under stress or danger. No problem with that.

I guess I allowed my main point/contention get lost in my wordy post.

What I'm lost on is:
If a player can 'take 10/20', thus elongating the time, then there's time to do whatever needs be done.
Therefore...since there's time and material...why would not the GM set the DC lower, therefore making the 'takes' unnecessary? Not just the DC, but the situational modifiers as well.

In an attempt to gain further understanding, I took out my Spycraft 2.0 rulebook. Mistake.
If there's one thing those rules don't do, it's giving anything out in an understandable manner.

I did realize one thing. There are apparently skill checks of Active, Secret and Passive. Secret being something the GM (or GC, rather, for Game Control) rolls since the player is purposely attempting but wouldn't really know if it was successful (lying, hiding,etc.). Passive being another that the GM rolls, but in this case the player, or the character wouldn't know he was being tested (noticing someone sneaking up behind him, for example).
"Take 10/20" aren't applicable to Secret or Passive.
Now...SpyLite doesn't make distinctions like this, but the point is taken and valid.

Further reading on the sections specifically covering Take 10 and Take 20, were less helpful, as they referenced a thousand more rules (that I, in turn, also had to read) that are ignored in SpyLite, or taken in much larger granularity.

I think I'm starting to sorta get it, but I still fail to see the point. When a DC is set pertaining to the difficulty and modifiers for the situation come into play...a situation that must clearly be 'easier' (thereby allowing a 'take' in the first place)...then... I don't see a cause for it... ugh.
Look. I know I'm being an idiot about this. I know full well I don't understand the system as a whole, and I'm certainly not ever going to learn in via Spycraft 2.0, as...well...who could? That rulebook is massive. Not just massive, but rules-heavy all the way through. In every pore.

I will say this.
If ever you actually want to lose the will to live... then pick up and flip through and just randomly read a passage or three or just a couple of sentences from Spycraft.
95% of all sentences are rules in and of themselves. Scores and scores of sentences on each page. 468 pages of rules.
Four. Hundred. And. Sixty. Eight. Pages.
No. I'm not making this up or exaggerating.
Character creation, if one includes skills and feats and equipment (and you must, if you wanna make a character)....after making a character...you've read three hundred and twenty one pages. No joke.
Combat sprawls over 38 pages. Yes, really. And in combat one would be likely using some skills and some feats, so that would pull the relevant combat page count up to at least (122+38=) 160 pages.

I fail to see how even the creators/writers of the game could read all that, let alone retain any of that info.
Do people really play games like that? S***, I don't see how anyone could even read it all without dying.

I could rant for hours about how solid pieces of my soul and bits of future laughter was stolen from me just by viewing these rules, but I won't. Sorry I did to begin with.

Still.
SpyLite. 18 pages. I just...can't resist. So, that's why I'm attempting to understand, though it may cause me many tears and broken things in my home.

[Aramis of Erak]

Take 10 is best for "casual resistance"... my perception vs your bluff... rather than risk the made by 20+ crit, I take 10... I avoid the 45% chance of rolling lower, or even botching, but give up the 50% chance of rolling better. It also avoids the minimum 5% failure rate in d20. (Nat 1 always fails.) Technically, take 10 can be done anytime outside of combat, but the D&D3 advice was anytime damage isn't on the line.

For comparison, it would be Take7 in T&T... give the player the option of taking a 7 in order to avoid rolling and risking a natural 3-4...

And in D20, take 10 is a player decision, not a GM one.

[Knuckles Bathory]

ok, ok ... I have never led any game except the one my son and I started, and he isn't standing here next to me right now begging to play some more, but I think he enjoyed it.. that being said..

I think the rules for all RPGs are designed around the same concepts, among them..

1. so people can play a game together
2. so the game is fair
3. so agreements can be reached
4. so the worlds in which we play are flexible and rigid when needed

I think these "take" rules are a, sort of common sense, way of buttering the bread in these worlds where we play.. and now an analogy..

If I get up from my computer and take a bath, I could slip getting into the tub, and break my neck and die.

This is not likely, although it is possible.
If my life were d20, I would fail to bathe in some horrible accident, at least once a month (1 in 20 times), this is not true-to-life.

I want to smell fresh and clean at the pub later, but if I had that kind of track record with the bathtub I just wouldn't bother, I would use the hose, and take a 1 in 20 chance of hanging myself.

So IMHO, take10 is for more common actions,

roll d20 to make breakfast.. NO..I will give up the 5% chance of making the best breakfast I ever had, to avoid the 5% chance of poisoning my entire family, and we will have average eggs, and predictable toast.

and take20 is for inevitable success,

roll d20 to put hot sauce on your eggs.. NO..someone at the breakfast table will open the hot sauce bottle, and I will have hot sauce on my eggs

this is more true to life than poisoning your entire family, and severing your finger while opening the ketchup 1 out of every 20 mornings. Correct me if I am wrong..

[jongjungbu]

LOL! Your analogies are so hilarious that I didn't even get the point you were making.
Sure was entertaining heheh

[machfront]

Sept 6, 2009 12:05:37 GMT -5 Aramis of Erak said:

Take 10 is best for "casual resistance"... my perception vs your bluff... rather than risk the made by 20+ crit, I take 10... I avoid the 45% chance of rolling lower, or even botching, but give up the 50% chance of rolling better. It also avoids the minimum 5% failure rate in d20. (Nat 1 always fails.) Technically, take 10 can be done anytime outside of combat, but the D&D3 advice was anytime damage isn't on the line.

For comparison, it would be Take7 in T&T... give the player the option of taking a 7 in order to avoid rolling and risking a natural 3-4...

And in D20, take 10 is a player decision, not a GM one.

Right. But I still wonder why, if something would/could be easier than 'usual' why a GM wouldn't simply lower the DC instead of having the player announce 'taking 10' for example.
I mean, I s'pose I'm somehow still spectacularly missing the point, cuz it sure seems odd. Odd that a DC would be stuck in stone, even regarding circumstances that may make it easier.

The 'casual resistance' part is a point taken.

I dunno. Maybe I'd need to see it in action, maybe often, to really get it. Or loads of examples. *shrug*

[Hogscape]

Once you go down the rules-heavy path, your thought patterns are altered alarmingly. You start to see a need for a rule where no need exists. So you create one. And one unnecessary rule begats another and another... Until you are adrift on the infinite RulesQuest sea...

The compass won't work out there Mach... Be careful out there.

[jongjungbu]

Sept 8, 2009 5:07:35 GMT -5 machfront said:

Right. But I still wonder why, if something would/could be easier than 'usual' why a GM wouldn't simply lower the DC instead of having the player announce 'taking 10' for example.

He can. The GM can set the DC for any standard or non-standard situation as he sees fit. The rules are there as a guideline for various things or explicitly defined for those rulebook lawyers, but the GM can set his own DC's to whatever he wants them to be for his adventure. If that is what you want to do, instead of having them 'Take 10', then by all means. Some GMs may not be as savvy and take the easy road perhaps.

[machfront]

Sept 8, 2009 9:42:44 GMT -5 jongjungbu said:

Sept 8, 2009 5:07:35 GMT -5 machfront said:

Right. But I still wonder why, if something would/could be easier than 'usual' why a GM wouldn't simply lower the DC instead of having the player announce 'taking 10' for example.

He can. The GM can set the DC for any standard or non-standard situation as he sees fit. The rules are there as a guideline for various things or explicitly defined for those rulebook lawyers, but the GM can set his own DC's to whatever he wants them to be for his adventure. If that is what you want to do, instead of having them 'Take 10', then by all means. Some GMs may not be as savvy and take the easy road perhaps.

While I agree, being of a rule-lite, old-school, free-form kinda guy, I'm just hesitant to change something until I'm certain I understand it. Or at least certain that I'm not misunderstanding it, ya know?