Take 20 is stupid

Remove all ads!

In my comments, I referred several times to the lock picking ability with regards to the "take 20" rule. As far as other abilities, it depends; if it makes sense to use, in our opinion, we allow it. But I don't think there are many that we see fit for that rule. Instead, we encourage the PC taking the time to improve his chances when there is time for it, just like in the case of the "take 20" rule, by giving a bonus to the roll worthy of the effort made before the actual roll is made.

Obviously, those are kind of "home-made" rules that probably every DM uses for its own campaign, as long as it fits its game and that everyone enjoys it which, again, is the purpose of the game, i.e. having fun.

As for a PC with a maxed out particular ability, he would obviously improve his chances of succeeding with the die roll. But just like the "take 20" rule, if I did not want the PC to succeed, the required DC could be set so high that even a 20 would have him fail. So for two different PCs with the same skill but at different ratings, a DC of 22 could be accomplished by both quite easily by taking 20. Would the maxed out PC be any prouder for that? Obviously not. However, a 22DC is not easily rolled unless you are well experienced, which increases your chances of success and where the better of the two PCs will succeed more often, naturaly.

I guess it's like comparing to real life; it must have happended to everyone that is excellent in a certain domain to have a problem solving or knowing or doing something that, once done by someone with a lot less experience in that domain, would dawn the "expert" as: Darn, it was so simple, why didn't I think of that!!!

[This message has been edited by stormhand (edited July 06, 2002).]

 

What's wrong with easily picking mundane doors anyway? As Erran stated, if you don't, you might as well put a wall there. Save your well planned key quests for those times when you have a magic door, after all, if the PCs really want through that wooden door blocking their way, they'll probably just get an axe and forget about any skill tests. So why not let them pick it? (And I'm not talking about dungeon crawls, an average PC will use that axe-tactic even in a city. )

Anyhow, the topic is 'take twenty is stupid', not 'why opening doors with take twenty is stupid', so maybe a comment on my search test example could be helpful.

 

The rule clearly states that take 20 is only allowed in limited circumstances:

"IF a skill carries no penalty for failure, you can take 20 and assume that you go at it long enough to succeed eventually".

According to the checks without rolls section, a 'take 20' option requires roughly 20 times the usual amount of time. Say, 2 minutes for a 1 round action.

If there is no pressure other than the consequence of failure, you can only 'take 10'.

I don't see why 'take 20' is a problem. It can never be used to climb a cliff (you might fall), hit on a girl (she might get offended), or disarm a trap (you could trigger it). If you *really* hate applying it to doors, rule a big failure in lockpicking breaks your lockpick and jams the lock. Then there is a consequence for failure and you can't use 'take 20'.

Aloha
Vormaerin

 

There are ways to work around the Take 20 rule if your players really want it in the game. You can have them roll on if the pick breaks and then roll to see if the broken part fell out of the lock or jammed the lock. Treat the Take 20 as a challage to your DM skills.

 

As A DM, I don't have a problem with take 20. My players rarely rarely use take 20 because in most times of need, they know they are pressed for time and using the time it takes to take 20 could bring upon some unwanted guests.

 

I play D&D alot, and I know from game experience that taking twenty is NOT I repeat NOT stupid, for it speeds up gameplay, and it also lwts bad rollers to succeed at one thing, it takes more time, and you can't take 20 on everything(if you are your DM is messed) because it takes time, just like taking ten. Thats all i have to say

 

If a lock or a locked door (or any take-20 situation), is essential for a thrilling adventure then its not the system that's faulty, its the DM.

**SUBNOTE**
Since players don't have to roll each time they want to take a step, why the heck not let a very skilled lockpicker pick that lock if he has no timepressure? Its not the players fault if the DM lets his players spend a few hours with a lock unencountered, is it? Come on! There are zounds of natural ways to come up with something, that would prevent the "take-20", if the DM was really interested and excited to make his/her adventure thrilling. Which DM has a static environment anyway?

Sorry to say this; but those DM's complaining about the 20-rule are either getting lazy at DM-ing or somehow missing (have lost?) the real spark of adventuring. DM-stering is not just another day in the trench. Neither is a " Basic Module with a lock" really inspiring DM-thoughts...

[ August 16, 2002, 17:40: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Well, I rather suspect that Erran was reacting to the excessive use of the rule in NWN more than to the straight PnP rulings. In NWN, just about any skill check not made with the combat music playing is given the "Take 20" benefit. *That* is stupid. Disarm Traps and Healing rolls are definitely not Take 20 situations.

 

Ahhh. That makes sense. its Obvious that NWN will never achieve same standards as PnP. NWN is kinda like a roleplaying session with an undedicated DM, isn't it? I wouldn't know I have never played it

 

if you don't like the idea of 'taking 20' then all you have to do is have wandering monsters in the area. the pc can only take 20 when there is no pressure, and no time limit to how many times they can 'keep trying' to do the task. if you have wandering monsters in the area, then that takes the 'i have all the time in the world' out of the equation, and they can no longer take 20.

 

I know I've not been playing long (and since erran's DMing the campaign I'm in I'd better watch what I say... ) but, from the mouths of babes and sucklings and all...
...Basically I agree with Nobleman. If the tension comes from a dice roll, then you may as well be gambling with no money. IMHO, most tension in the game should be due to the player's actions and the DM-enforced consequences of such. As has been already pointed out, take-20 can be a useful fudge for stopping bad rolls interfering with the plot, and can be easily prevented by circumstances should the DM wish. I also think that the DM could create situations whereby taking twenty could be an interesting tactical decision. Supposing there is no immediate danger, but rising water, rallying guards, whatever would make the next part more difficult if the PCs took the time for a take twenty, or if the PCs are working to a deadline they could only afford the time for so many take twenties.

 

In terms of NWN (my original post above was with that in mind), Take 20 is totally abused and applied incorrectly.

And while it sounds like most people here don't abuse it, or, as DMs don't see it being abused, if you've ever played with rule-misers, this is the kind of rule that makes a DM cringe. Years ago I played with a guy who constantly tried to find every feasible loop hole in a rule (usually the result of poor grammar in the rule books, or a vaguely stated rule) and use them to his advantage. Admitedly, this has caused me to give a knee-jerk reaction to certain rules, such as this one. Luckily, the group I play with now is much more mature, and just an all-round great bunch of people to play with.

As Vormaerin pointed out above, the rule really does have limited applications (absolutely no pressure and no consequences for failure). And as many people have pointed out, it's really up to the DM to come up with ways to make the adventure more challenging and interesting for the players. In my own games, there have been very few instances where the rule has actually been applicable (a few locks is about it, mostly on found chests). One thing I've found interesting though, is that the players don't always *realise* that there is no pressure on them which, when you think about it, is a very realistic situation. For example, a player will say something to the effect of "I'll try to unlock the chest, but taking care so as to hear anything sneaking around" - they're putting pressure on themselves. Still, I will sometimes apply the rule without a player knowing it - usually a Search check in an empty and isolated room. I'll just let them know that it takes several minutes, but they do find the bits of gold hidden under the midden heap, or the very small writing on the wall, etc.

 

Gnolyn: i agree.. the games that i have played, no one has ever freely used 'take 20' or 'take 10' for that matter. it's alwasy been the DM when he got frustrated with rolls and re-rolls to say that there was no time limit and if they were really worried about what was behind door number 2 they could take 20.

also, in NWN i was VERY surprized at how ANYTHING out of combat was an automatic sucess because of 'take 20'. so in tha trespect, i agree it has been very abused and overused inaporpriately.

 

When I used to DM, (We're talking AD&D here) it was one roll on a twenty sided, and this one roll took up a few turns. The reason for this is that we decided as a group that not six seconds, but six minutes or so had elapsed before the PC has given up. Thus, one roll to account for the amount of time it would take for even the most persistent of people to give up trying to open a door. That way we could move quickly through the campaign.

 

I haven't played much D&D, and no 3rd edition rules, so I'm not familiar with the 'Take 20' rule, but I think I can get the sense of it from the posts above.
In the system I play, Middle-Earth Roleplaying, the skills system is more complex, with a more varying set of results which I feel is more realistic. Basically, below a plain Success, you have a range of failure types:
Near Success - try again after a short time thinking with a positive modifier
Partial Success - try again after a longer time (eg 10 mins) thinking with no modifier
Failure - you can't try again until next day/week/level
Absolute Failure - you can never try again. Any traps may be triggered
Blunder - you can never try again. Any traps are triggered {plus any other bad things the GM wants}

I like the range of possibilities, and don't think that you should 'always' be able to get through a locked door; after all, however long I spend looking at it, I simply won't be able to unlock a tumbler lock, because I wouldn't know where to start. If that rule was going to be played however, it might be worth considering the time that would be taken - if each attempt takes 5 minutes, then spending nearly 2 hours trying to unlock a door leaves lots of scope for wandering monsters to approach and any enemies to draw up plans against you.