Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828223But how do you determine who is paying attention? It's not like the other characters all announce ahead of time "I'm paying attention to this convo."

Usually they're just standing around while the party face talks to the NPC. Then when the party face flubs a roll they all step in.

It depends on the circumstances.

If the party have gone to a tavern and are questioning the innkeeper, then the GM can assume that everyone is paying attention, with the possible exception of anyone drinking or flirting with the barmaids.

If the party have met a caravan in the middle of the wilderness, then some of the party might be keeping watch, others might be checking out the caravan, or counting guards.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828229It's so easy for them to just say "we're all listening" though. It doesn't solve that main problematic situation.

It's only a problem if you think it's a problem. Personally, I don't have a problem with that.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;828229Especially since my players rarely do other stuff separately.

If the party needs to get through a locked door, they would try in turn, until one succeeds or fumbles. The GM could apply a penalty for subsequent attempts due to the previous clumsy attempts.

However, for something like perception or insight, the party could argue that they are attempting the roll at the same time, but are simply rolling in sequence for game purposes.

Quote from: nDervish;828234But it doesn't matter whether it succeeds on the next try, only that it succeeds on any try.  And if everyone can try, then the math quickly starts to favor them.

Say you have a Nature skill in your game, since that was mentioned previously.  It's not something highly-specialized, so all characters should be able to make a default roll on it, with, say, a 25% chance of success.  Low enough that they'll never pass a Nature check unless a ranger-type invests in it, right?

Wrong.

If you've got a group of four PCs and all of them get to roll Nature, then there's a 68% chance that at least one will succeed.  Add a fifth PC and it's 76%.  Or maybe it's four PCs with two henchmen each...  12 rolls?  97%.  All without anyone knowing anything about Nature beyond the default roll they receive just for having a pulse.

So why, then, would you need anyone to invest significantly in their Nature skill when "have everyone make unskilled rolls" is as (or more) effective and costs less?  (Speaking purely from a mechanical standpoint here.  Characterization is a good reason, but outside the scope of this discussion.)

Which is likely the genesis of the Group Check roll in 5e where failures > success halts progress and goes straight to consequences. Well, that and hammering out *something* retainable from 4e's Skill Challenges. Could be a useful tool to keep people from dog piling tasks waiting for that 5% chance for a Nat 20.

"Hey everybody! If all us illiterate peasants tried our hand at the calculus word problem one of us is bound to solve it!"

Quote from: nDervish;828234So why, then, would you need anyone to invest significantly in their Nature skill when "have everyone make unskilled rolls" is as (or more) effective and costs less?  (Speaking purely from a mechanical standpoint here.

Agreed that can be a problem. Here are some things I've used.

A) Tier the available information and just give Very Easy information to anyone with a Nature Lore skill level of 30%, Easy information to anyone with a 40%, Moderate information to anyone with a 50% etc. This provides an incentive to increasing the basic skill and avoids rolling for stuff that everyone should know or be able to do. The roll is then used to determine if information above the automatic threshold is obtained.

B) Only allow the character with the highest skill to make a roll.

C) Allow helpers to give a bonus to the character with the highest roll. One way to do that is they add a bonus if they make their roll, double bonus if they critical, subtract if they fumble (or even subtract if they fail, though the subtraction should probably be less than the bonus for success).

D) Make successive tries more difficult, e.g. first try roll normally. Second try -20%, third try -40%, etc.  Once the chance to succeed is 0% or less don't allow a roll. This provides diminishing returns for 'me too' attempts.

E) Roll for the PCs so that players does not know if the die roll was good or bad. They only know what the GM tells them they learned.

Quote from: Opaopajr;828240Which is likely the genesis of the Group Check roll in 5e where failures > success halts progress and goes straight to consequences. Well, that and hammering out *something* retainable from 4e's Skill Challenges. Could be a useful tool to keep people from dog piling tasks waiting for that 5% chance for a Nat 20.

"Hey everybody! If all us illiterate peasants tried our hand at the calculus word problem one of us is bound to solve it!"

Good point. This is an example where multiple helpers are going to subtract from the chance to succeed since dealing with their ignorant input is a time waster and a distraction.

These are some awesome suggestions that I will definitely be using in the next game!

IMO, there should always be a potential consequence for an unsuccessful roll.  For example, if a character wants to try picking a lock, rule that they will break a pick and jam the lock if they fail the roll by more than a certain threshold. If they're trying to sense whether an NPC is lying, and fail by a certain threshold, they will piss the NPC off or draw unwanted attention to themselves as they stare rudely or say something impolitic.

The consequence doesn't have to be harsh, necessarily - if everyone wants to search the same section of wall to find the secret door that must be there, it might just take a long time, which gives wandering monsters or guards more chances to show up.

If there is no negative consequence for failing at something, you probably shouldn't bother rolling. This is why I dislike skills such as Sense Motive - it either becomes a must-have skill that everyone wants to roll all the time, or it becomes nigh-useless as the DM never gives any good information through it.

Quote from: Ddogwood;828375IMO, there should always be a potential consequence for an unsuccessful roll.  For example, if a character wants to try picking a lock, rule that they will break a pick and jam the lock if they fail the roll by more than a certain threshold.

I use that. Lockpick tools break. The PC totally believes the villains story, etc. Usually only on a really bad roll.

Flubbed lockpicking attempts also leave marks, make noise, and might even mess up the lock, making it even harder to open.

Having every fool try to be a naturalist can have all sorts of bad effects, and is a great time to not warn your players before letting them try, as it can lead to an entire series of adventures all by itself. Watch them ruin the tracks the actual naturalist would have been able to read, scare off all the prey animals, leave obvious tracks everywhere for others to track the party with, disturb wasps and snakes, leave their food out at night, fall into mud, ravines, get their clothes wet, touch nettles, etc etc etc.

Amateur interrogators can end up revealing information themselves without realizing it, and/or alienating their own party by seeming like sadist scumbags or fools.

You don't want Grubnir the Filthy attempting to stop your bleeding, or cooking your food, or using any social skills other than "learn to bathe".

"Everyone check for traps - we're sure to find them that way!" Yes, you are...

This is why there is a need for good rules which take probability and statistics into account and provide the GM with a good realistic system for determining what happens when X people with various skill levels attempt various things.

Quote from: nDervish;828234Say you have a Nature skill in your game, since that was mentioned previously.  It's not something highly-specialized, so all characters should be able to make a default roll on it, with, say, a 25% chance of success.  Low enough that they'll never pass a Nature check unless a ranger-type invests in it, right?

Wrong.

If you've got a group of four PCs and all of them get to roll Nature, then there's a 68% chance that at least one will succeed.  Add a fifth PC and it's 76%.  Or maybe it's four PCs with two henchmen each...  12 rolls?  97%.  All without anyone knowing anything about Nature beyond the default roll they receive just for having a pulse.

So why, then, would you need anyone to invest significantly in their Nature skill when "have everyone make unskilled rolls" is as (or more) effective and costs less?  (Speaking purely from a mechanical standpoint here.  Characterization is a good reason, but outside the scope of this discussion.)

As I mentioned earlier, I consider this fundamentally a system problem. From real life, specialized training ought to make a big difference in success chance. If someone is a trained tracker, they should have a much better chance than someone who is untrained - like a city-born tradesman.

However, most system have training make only a mild difference in the roll. For example, in 5e D&D, training in a low-level character adds 15% to the chance of success (+3 on 1d20). So if a city-born tradesman has a 25% chance, then a trained tracker has a 40% chance. That's just not a big difference.

For my tastes, I would prefer to have training make much more of a difference. If something is a subtle problem that even a trained expert has only a 50-50 shot at noticing, then an untrained person should have almost no chance at noticing it (5% or even 0%). The way to make investment in skill worthwhile is to have skill make a serious difference.

Quote from: Skarg;828403Having every fool try to be a naturalist can have all sorts of bad effects, and is a great time to not warn your players before letting them try, as it can lead to an entire series of adventures all by itself. Watch them ruin the tracks the actual naturalist would have been able to read, scare off all the prey animals, leave obvious tracks everywhere for others to track the party with, disturb wasps and snakes, leave their food out at night, fall into mud, ravines, get their clothes wet, touch nettles, etc etc etc.

There are two big problems I have with this.

1) There is a tendency of GMs to have characters act like utter idiots if they roll even a regular failure. I find this both unrealistic and annoying as a player. Competent people don't suddenly turn into bumbling fools from one minute to the next.

2) Acting as if a trained naturalist is much better than an untrained character is dumb if it isn't reflected in the system. If the naturalist only has a 15% higher chance, then don't act like there is a world of difference between a naturalist and an untrained character.

The choices are either:  (a) Stick with the system as written, and marked skill only represents a minor difference in expertise; or (b) Modify the system to give the trained naturalist a much higher chance.

Quote from: jhkim;828421As I mentioned earlier, I consider this fundamentally a system problem. From real life, specialized training ought to make a big difference in success chance. If someone is a trained tracker, they should have a much better chance than someone who is untrained - like a city-born tradesman.

However, most system have training make only a mild difference in the roll. For example, in 5e D&D, training in a low-level character adds 15% to the chance of success (+3 on 1d20). So if a city-born tradesman has a 25% chance, then a trained tracker has a 40% chance. That's just not a big difference.

That is not how skills necessarily work in Runequest/CoC/BRP. Depending on how difficult a task is no roll may be required or there should even be a multiplier for the skill. (And if the multiplier is > 1 this magnifies the effective difference in skills.)

One way to handle this is:

Quote from: Bren;828265A) Tier the available information and just give Very Easy information to anyone with a Nature Lore skill level of 30%, Easy information to anyone with a 40%, Moderate information to anyone with a 50% etc. This provides an incentive to increasing the basic skill and avoids rolling for stuff that everyone should know or be able to do. The roll is then used to determine if information above the automatic threshold is obtained.

I have seen this used in BRP style scenarios/rule sets so it isn't like this is changing the rules.

Exactly. Which is why I let the specialists do their thing and when its my spotlight I do mine. If chance should arise.

Quote from: jhkim;828421...
There are two big problems I have with this.

1) There is a tendency of GMs to have characters act like utter idiots if they roll even a regular failure. I find this both unrealistic and annoying as a player. Competent people don't suddenly turn into bumbling fools from one minute to the next.

2) Acting as if a trained naturalist is much better than an untrained character is dumb if it isn't reflected in the system. If the naturalist only has a 15% higher chance, then don't act like there is a world of difference between a naturalist and an untrained character.

The choices are either:  (a) Stick with the system as written, and marked skill only represents a minor difference in expertise; or (b) Modify the system to give the trained naturalist a much higher chance.

Right. Weak systems and inexpert GM's can and do mess this up a lot. I wrote those failure ideas as a counterpoint to the comment from someone who didn't seem to realize that failures could have consequences, concluding that having multiple characters try things would make skills meaningless.

A system or GM who unconsciously make the game into random keystone kops is worse than the GM who doesn't realize they've made the expert naturalist useless by using a system that makes his skills effectively pointless.

Even good simulationist systems tend to have various rules holes which can lead to big problems. It can take a very good/experienced GM to be able to spot these and intervene either with GM discretion, or by making up good detailed house rules to fix the problems. For example, I had several years experience when I realized only after a few good characters had died from falling, that there's a severe problem with making a single climbing roll failure result in an automatic fall with no saving chance.

As I said, that's why there's a need for reasonable cause and effect, preferably designed by someone who knows about the real skill (naturalism in this case) and understands both the RPG (how skill levels map to real-world people) and probability (how to design die rolls that actually represent these understandings well). And, it's hard to do with a limited die roll, particularly 1d20 where 1 is always a crit fail. I tend to use 3d6, where consequences depend on what you're doing, what your skill level is, and really bad results need to be confirmed by further rolls on other multi-die tables (or GM discretion) which in turn have savings rolls involved.

For example: Everyone trying to forage for food in the forest rolls 3d6 versus Naturalist(Forest). Success means you get a meal. Crit success (you roll 10 less than skill, or a 3 or 4) means you find 2d6 meals worth of something. Failure means you find nothing. If you miss by more than 3, you're leaving tracks, making noise, and if people later attempt hunting, they'll be at -2. Failure by 6 or more means roll on a lesser mishap table, which gives an IQ or DX save to avoid some further inconvenience. Failure by 9 or more, or a raw 17 or 18, means roll on the forest survival crit fail table, which is 3d6 where the usual result is get wet and/or muddy and/or waste time and make noise, spook animals and leave spectacular tracks, but the outliers on *that* table are potentially dangerous, such as make a spot roll or step on a dangerous snake's tail, or roll vs DX or twist your ankle, or attract a bear while wandering off alone...

One way I handle this is by having a progressive penalty to any check done by any player character after the first who has a worse bonus than the anyone who rolled earlier.  A case of "too many cooks spoil the broth".

In some systems, I require that only one PC roll, while others can add a bonus to that check IF they have a sufficiently high bonus/skill in the same area.