Quote from:  TheHistorianWhat part of it is bothering you?

1. The time it takes for each player to check in succession

2. The stretching of believability for each player to attempt something in succesion

3. Players trying things just to gain experience in a skill

4. Something else

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826764#1 and #2, and also that it is actually meta-gaming, because IC the characters don't know that someone just failed a roll.

In-character, the characters aren't rolling dice. The question is - what in-character actions are they doing? If they're all helping search, then they should all roll - or perhaps they should use a helping rule where some characters give a bonus to the lead character's roll.

In-character, multiple people working together to search an area should have a better chance to find something than a single character searching by themselves.


My typical problem with this is just that most rules give too much weight to random chance, and not enough of a bonus for ability/skill. Thus, it seems like cheating if you give many chances to roll, because they're almost guaranteed success if they all get to roll for search. That's mainly a problem with the rule system, in my opinion, not with player behavior.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;826775If someone volunteers to make a skill check on a "Me too!" basis, I'll usually allow them to assist the first player who thought of making the roll...
Not every skill is amenable to this mechanic, unfortunately.

Yeah, I think detecting a lie is one of those situations that falls outside of the assist mechanic... most things that involves personal observation I'd keep as individual rolls.

Quote from: Simlasa;826777Yeah, I think detecting a lie is one of those situations that falls outside of the assist mechanic... most things that involves personal observation I'd keep as individual rolls.

So couldn't each player individually try to do it?

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826782So couldn't each player individually try to do it?

Yeah, and as has been mentioned/suggested... have all that want to try be rolled at the same time, by the GM. Because it's one of those things that's temporally isolated (the NPC is only telling THAT lie at that moment), you can't really KNOW if you (or anyone else) succeeded until later consequence (like disarming a trap) AND it's not really the sort of thing you can lend a hand on either... each person is going to have their own impression of what's going on, modified by their skill.
Similarly it's also one of those situations where I wouldn't allow a 'Push'... a second try of the same skill... though I might with something like operating a machine.

I've seen a lot of GMs do it with open rolls instead... just call for anyone in earshot to roll to see if they hear something amiss. Anyone who makes their roll hears the thing... the PC who is asleep or listening to his iPod doesn't get to roll. There's nobody left to say 'me too!' in case no one makes their roll.
The downside is that if no one makes their roll they're left wondering what it was they didn't hear... and have to play out their PC's ignorance despite the Players being on guard.
We had that happen in our Call of Cthulhu game tonight, but in that case it was a GOOD thing no one saw whatever it was we didn't see.

Prior to 5e I just had the players pick one player to roll, but with 5e I use one of three options:

If it is a one player thing, they players pick which one of them rolls.

If it is something a couple of players want to do, they pick one to roll and they get Advantage if another player helps. (if at least one is watching out)

If it fits a group check for everyone, they do that.

It's a bit story-gamey, but I don't let players roll until everybody is clear on what the stakes are. If the players are rolling checks, they should win something if they succeed and lose something if they fail. If the player rolls prematurely before the stakes are set, the roll doesn't count for anything.

Quote from: Werekoala;826760I guess it's fallen out of favor, but aside from combat rolls, I think the DM/GM should make all the rolls behind a Wall of Ignorance and Fear (tm); after all, how would the character know if he just blew a roll, as opposed to there not being an actual secret door in the room (for example)?

Yes, I've been doing the non-combat rolls in my 5e online game & I find it works much better.

I think for my Classic D&D game with d20-roll-under-stat I will roll one d20 myself, and everyone whose stat is equal to or less than that succeeds - this makes stealth, knowledge, persuasion etc work a lot better, though Classic also has a good d6 based Surprise check system that incorporates stealthiness.

Quote from: Simlasa;826773My version would be more like:

NPC:

Player A: I want to see if he's lying.

GM: OK, anyone else want to pay attention and see if they think the guy is telling the truth?

Player B: I do

GM: (Rolls Insight for A and B behind a screen) OK, Player A, you think he's lying... Player B, you think he's being truthful (or however the rolls turn out)

Player C: I want to try too!

At least player A was paying attention. I've had players who expect to be able to auto-pilot and never request an Insight check when the obviously deceitful NPC (Zark, captured dwarf evil slaver/kidnapper) says something obviously shifty ("Oh yes, free me and I'll fight for you against the other evil slavers") and get angry when the NPC they've freed and armed turns against them during the battle. They thought I should have asked them to make Insight checks! :eek:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826756How do you handle it? When you're GMing a game, and every time somebody searches for something, every single player waits to see the results of the previous roll before making their own roll, if it's a bad roll.

I generally don't do pass/fail rolls outside of combat - if you roll better, you get a better result.  Because of this, when a situation comes up where more than one person can attempt a task, my players will all roll simultaneously (whether I tell them to or not...) and work out who rolled best.  They don't roll in sequence waiting for me to tell them something because they know that, even if I do tell them something on a roll of 10, I might tell them more on a 15, so just getting a piece of information isn't enough to know that there's no point in anyone else rolling.

Quote from: Werekoala;826760I guess it's fallen out of favor, but aside from combat rolls, I think the DM/GM should make all the rolls behind a Wall of Ignorance and Fear (tm); after all, how would the character know if he just blew a roll, as opposed to there not being an actual secret door in the room (for example)?

This too!  I frequently do the rolls myself in situations where the characters wouldn't know whether they succeeded or failed, although it's also fun when playing with people who I know will choose not to act on OOC knowledge.  Actual statement made by a player during a nighttime ambush by Evil Samurai:  "I'll try to hide in this nearby bush... A 2.  I think I'm being really sneaky and well-hidden..."

Quote from: ptingler;826761One of the things that you can do is only roll for the player with the highest skill. That way if the most talented/skilled person fails then less skilled/talented people auto-fail. This can be done by the player or the GM either one.

The problem with that is that then you always have the same person noticing everything.  One character makes all the Perception rolls, so everyone else may as well be blind and deaf.

Quote from: jhkim;826776My typical problem with this is just that most rules give too much weight to random chance, and not enough of a bonus for ability/skill. Thus, it seems like cheating if you give many chances to roll, because they're almost guaranteed success if they all get to roll for search. That's mainly a problem with the rule system, in my opinion, not with player behavior.

Agreed.  Unfortunately, I've not been able to find a good solution to that.  Multiple characters attempting a task should make it easier, but not by the degree that it becomes easier when "multiple characters attempting" comes down to "throwing more dice at it".

Quote from: Werekoala;826760I guess it's fallen out of favor, but aside from combat rolls, I think the DM/GM should make all the rolls behind a Wall of Ignorance and Fear (tm); after all, how would the character know if he just blew a roll, as opposed to there not being an actual secret door in the room (for example)?

Or the art of having a designated player and role-playing what you rolled. This happens to my group at the most interesting of times. Player A is talking with a NPC to get info. Does a check to see if the suspicious NPC is being truthful.  Rolls a 4. I tell player A "Seems totally believable to you." who then happily turns to the rest of the group and says "Guys! I think we can trust this fellow!" who then roll their eyes and say "Sure. I'll buy one of those "potions of extra healing" too."

But if say the shady NPC flubs their deception and Player A flubs his. Then I tell any players with applicable skills to make a roll to see if they pick up on the slipup just from casual listening.

Or in the secret door case. The group relies on the word of the point man searching. If he says there is no secret door after a bad roll, no one else jumps in to try and search that spot. They take his word on it and move on.

Quote from: nDervish;826816The problem with that is that then you always have the same person noticing everything.  One character makes all the Perception rolls, so everyone else may as well be blind and deaf.

Depends on how you handle it. You could assume that only that player notices or you could announce it in a more general manner. For example, group is in a room and you roll vs. highest skill person to see if a secret door is found. If successful you announce "Okay you guys find a small difference in the southern wall revealing a secret door." But I tend to GM more in a party succeeds or fails as a group than it's a solo beat the guy next to you style.

I wouldn't call it "solo beat the guy next to you style", since it's not intended to be (or presented as) competitive, but, in the real world, someone would generally be the first person to spot the secret door.  "Bob sees a secret door" feels much more concrete to me than "you guys see a secret door". The latter just makes me wonder whether there actually are separate characters present or if the secret door was spotted by The Gestalt Party Hive Mind.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826769So what if something like this happens?

NPC:

Player A: I want to see if he's lying.

GM: OK, roll Insight.

Player A: A 2... damn.

GM: You're not sure if he--

Player B: Wait! I want to check too!

GM: Nope, Player A already checked, and he says that NPC is telling the truth.

Do this a couple of times, and then hopefully the table will start roleplaying like Omega suggests:

QuoteOr in the secret door case. The group relies on the word of the point man searching. If he says there is no secret door after a bad roll, no one else jumps in to try and search that spot. They take his word on it and move on.

I don't like rolling behind a screen. But sometimes what I do have is a prerolled list of numbers. Everytime a character checks for something (or even when an Elf passes by a secret door unawares), I consult the list.

If you let players see their own true/false information rolls, then you are letting them know (at least in the case of high/low rolls) information that their characters supposedly don't.
(e.g. Oh I rolled great and didn't find anything - there must not be anything anyone could find.)

Letting them see other players' rolls gives them even more out-of-character information.

In cases such as detecting lies, extra care is needed to avoid having hard situations give away information to players. For example, if you're careless about what to say on a failure, then a master deceiver can be easy to read - just have someone weak-minded try to detect lies, and believe the opposite of what they think.

Even rolling dice only when something "interesting" is going on, gives the players extra information,

Quote from: jhkimMy typical problem with this is just that most rules give too much weight to random chance, and not enough of a bonus for ability/skill. Thus, it seems like cheating if you give many chances to roll, because they're almost guaranteed success if they all get to roll for search. That's mainly a problem with the rule system, in my opinion, not with player behavior.

Quote from: nDervish;826816Agreed.  Unfortunately, I've not been able to find a good solution to that.  Multiple characters attempting a task should make it easier, but not by the degree that it becomes easier when "multiple characters attempting" comes down to "throwing more dice at it".

It's not to everyone's taste, but a potential solution is using either a low-randomness diced system (like CORPS) or a fully diceless system.

In reality, expertise matters a lot. An expert has a roughly 100% chance to do many things that an amateur has roughly 0% chance at. A beginning physics student has no chance of calculating a complex Lagrangian that an expert can do routinely. A beginning dancer has no chance to do a backflip that an expert can do routinely. A beginning programmer has no chance to hack into a system that an expert hacker can trivially get into.

However, in most RPGs, this doesn't happen. Beginner skill might be something like 20%, and expert skill is maybe 80%. In these systems, if you want to get something done, the best way is to get multiple rolls. Given this, if I'm playing in those systems, I just expect that and plan around it rather than railing against it.

Quote from: S'mon;826800At least player A was paying attention. I've had players who expect to be able to auto-pilot and never request an Insight check when the obviously deceitful NPC (Zark, captured dwarf evil slaver/kidnapper) says something obviously shifty ("Oh yes, free me and I'll fight for you against the other evil slavers") and get angry when the NPC they've freed and armed turns against them during the battle. They thought I should have asked them to make Insight checks! :eek:

This is a matter of convention. In general, as GM I ask players to make Perception and Insight checks as a matter of course. Unless they say otherwise, I assume that the PCs are being alert and careful, and give them appropriate information based on that. I don't want to encourage what I consider micromanagement or "pixel-bitching", where the players benefit if they constantly say things like "I look around me" or "I pay attention to him as he's talking" or such.

In the case of things like perception, detect lie, or search checks:

1) If it's something that they're almost certainly going to notice if they all roll, then I typically won't bother with the roll and will just tell them. ("He seems shifty and evasive on this point.")

2) If the roll is more doubtful, then I'll ask them all to roll unless they specifically have said they're doing something else.