Except for when threatened or distracted (such as in combat), simply assume that NPCs and monsters always take 10 on skill checks.
As I said, staggeringly simple. I never considered this a "trick" until I observed other DMs who don't do it. I would never even have bothered with it myself until my gaming group started being unable to get together more than once a month and time became a precious and scarce commodity for us. A few seconds here and there for NPC and monster skill rolls added up to many minutes over the course of the evening--minutes that we could better spend playing.
I'll grant that it is not to everyone's taste. Some folks will always prefer the randomness that die-rolling provides. More power to them. I don't always do it myself, but if you want to spend less time rolling dice then this simple technique works very well. It seems incredibly simplistic --and it is -- but it is also a tremendous time-saver. It also has the added benefit that when you pull the dice out the players know you really mean business. ;)
Yeah, it speeds the game up, but it sacrifices what little realism there is in D&D by just assuming everyone is devoting 100% to every possible skill at any given point in time.
I like the idea of players knowing you mean business when you do pull out the dice, but I personally prefer the "keep them on edge by rolling a d20 randomly for no reason" method. For added enjoyment, after you roll two or three times, ask them for their spot/listen modifiers and smile enigmatically. Someone has a +30? "You see/hear a slight rustle of underbrush nearby. You can't tell what it is, it could be anything really."
That works when the PCs/monsters have the time to take 10, but what about spot checks for a random encounter? A monster isn't going to sit still long enough for a character to take 10 on him for that range. What about listen checks? Sounds happen once; they don't hang around for a minute or two so you can take 10 to see if you hear it.
Yeah, it speeds the game up, but it sacrifices what little realism there is in D&D by just assuming everyone is devoting 100% to every possible skill at any given point in time.
But he clearly stated that you apply this little mechanic when the players are not threatened or distracted. Spot checks for a random encounter fall under the "threatened" category.
And as for listening, if the player is doing anything other than listening for strange sounds, then he falls into the "distracted" category. In both cases, the original poster has stated that you would roll for these checks. I'm in defense of this strategy because I use it myself.
When the players are just milling about and have given me a short term objective, I simply roll play things according to taking 10. If a DC for something is above 10, then I roll the die. I take this instant take 10 a step further because my NPC opposed checks need to be higher than 10 for me to worry about the players rolling for it except in combat.
Some of it is going to be based on style of play. For instance, in our games, when the players are not in combat, they declare a movement order via formation, and what their player is concentrating on.
If I roll a hide check for an ambush party and score 7, then the player in the party who has stated "I'm keeping an eye out for signs of trouble" will spot this, as the poorly planned ambush has a DC of less than 10, and the player has stated, more or less, that he is taking 10 on spot checks.
That works when the PCs/monsters have the time to take 10, but what about spot checks for a random encounter?
It doesn't take a creature extra time to take 10 (you might be thinking of take 20). Basically, what Ocalus is suggesting is to turn opposed checks into set DCs, and there's no "loss of realism", it's merely a shift in game mechanic.
Not only is it a bit of a time saver for the game, I would argue that fewer random spot/listen and even initiative rolls for monsters is more realistic. (btw, I would add monster initiative rolls to your list of averaged, non-rolled checks, Ocalus).
For instance, since a monster with a 16 Dex and Improved Initiative is really only ever going to roll initiative once in its entire life (for the encounter with the PCs) I would argue it's more realistic to set its initiative at 17 (10+7), and force the PCs to beat it. Its initiative becomes a DC of sorts.
Keep in mind that the PC with the 16 Dex and Improved Initiative gets many chances to roll initiative over his or her life, and so one non-typical low roll in one encounter will more than likely be offset by a typical and non-typical high roll later.
I've also noticed that my players like this rule because their high initiative rolls always mean something good (as opposed to my telling them "well, I happened to roll a natural 19, so my adjusted 26 beats your 25. Sorry).
Core D&D doesn't make us roll for AC, but we could. It has nothing to do with realism; it just speeds the game up, and puts the drama entirely in the attack roll. I see nothing wrong with turning opposed checks into PC-only-rolled DC checks, and agree it should be done more often, if not entirely as a rule
P.S. this also helps me a great deal in knowing before hand the likely hood of thieves being spotted and the like. =)
Rest assured, I will be using this method. Thank you.
(btw, I would add monster initiative rolls to your list of averaged, non-rolled checks, Ocalus).
For instance, since a monster with a 16 Dex and Improved Initiative is really only ever going to roll initiative once in its entire life (for the encounter with the PCs) I would argue it's more realistic to set its initiative at 17 (10+7), and force the PCs to beat it. Its initiative becomes a DC of sorts.
This is fine when the party is fighting a single monster, but becomes problematic when there are multiple monsters with the same initiative modifier. If all the monsters go on the same initiative, then it becomes much easier for them to concentrate attacks on one PC before the rest of the party can do anything to help. That can be deadly.
Another major advantage is for planning on the DMs part. If he knows ahead of time the spot and hide DCs for an encounter he can get a better handle on the distance at which an encounter is likely.
I concur that this is a good idea for initiative with single monsters or even with a few identical monsters all attacking from the same direction (3 ghouls, for example). However if there are multiple types of monsters or different groups (flanking groups, etc) I roll initiative by type and/or group. This means you don't have all of the monsters going at once and you can use some teamwork based on the results of other monsters' actions. For example, the players are fighting a boss vampire and six of his spawn. Three of the spawn are in front with the boss and three have come in behind the players. I roll three initiatives for monsters, boss, group 1, and group 2.
I find that players enjoy it a little more if the round has a little different order sometimes rather than the monsters always going at the same time.
Just my thoughts.
Some folks will always prefer the randomness that die-rolling provides. More power to them.
For those who do want to keep the randomness but not lose the game time is to just pre-roll the dice. The night (or week) before the game, the DM could spend a few minutes rolling a d20 a couple hundred times (or use a random number generator) and record the numbers. During the game, simply use the next number for the skill check, initiative, etc. When you're done, you can just recycle the numbers or generate a new list.