i think the 40k games has a shared attempt mechanic, something like each assist (max number depending on the situation) adds +10 bonus.  can't say for sure, as i'm away from my RT book.

but if used occasionally, it can add some drama--the main doctor blows his throw, then the "intern" character makes it.  doc's fatigued, so he didn't see the simple thing the intern did, etc.  

but i could see it being frustrating if it happens all the time.  depends on your group, i guess.

In general, some skills you shouldn't be able to try without sufficient training.

Quote from: Benoist;535799Buzzkill the tank's got Forcing Bars at 5 in 6, Trap Finding at 2 in 6, and Lore at 1 in 6.

Sneakydude has Forcing Bars 1 in 6, Trap finding 5 in 6 and Lore 3 in 6.

Magicwiz has Forcing Bars 1 in 6, Trap finding 2 in 6 and Lore 5 in 6.

If you are systematically using the highest skill in the group for cooperative tasks, this means that Ye Olde Party together have Forcing Bars 5 in 6, Trap Finding 5 in 6, and Lore 5 in 6. So long as they are attempting tasks in concert systematically, they have 5 in 6 chances to succeed at anything.

Now if your players are not aware of this, then I guess it could work, if the system itself doesn't encourage members of a party to each specialize in a specific area of expertise (whereas it is the case with Class systems, like D&D), but once they are aware of that house rule, trust me, they're (1) going to discuss who specializes in what so that all the eventualities are covered, and (2) will never ever leave each others' vicinity and attempt stuff together at all times to guarantee the group's success at searching, finding bits of lore and disarming traps. And let me stress, this is not "weird" or "cheating", it's normal: it's basically what the house rule encourages them to do, so it's natural for them to think about this this way.

I don't see the problem. The reason PCs band together in the first place is to have skills that complement one another.

The first time I ever picked a lock, I was about 11 years old, I had no training and I used a couple of darning (i.e. large) needles. For some skill tests, there's always a chance, however slim, that the PC will succeed. For others (e.g. a caveman attempting to hack a firewall), there's no chance. The GM has to use his judgment.

Ummm, how about assigning a penalty for every attempt past the first?
It doesn't make it impossible, just unlikely that "I'll try!" will work.

A couple of mechanics I use frequently (mainly in 1e AD&D, occasionally in Classic):

I use roll-under ability checks, on a 20 for reasonably doable tasks, occasionally on a percentile if it's something really tough.  Modifiers to taste in either case.  For group efforts (cooperative, not "we all line up and try one by one"), the player of the character with the highest chance of success makes the roll, and I'll go with one of the following, depending on how much help multiple people would be:  +1 for each additional character, + half the score for each additional character (so, if a Str 10 PC and a Str 10 PC try, they're rolling against 15), + half the score for the first assistant and a quarter for the next (so on and so forth, so 3 Str 10 PCs are rolling against 17, and a fourth would only bring it to 18), or all scores totaled (only when rolling on a percentile).  For a bend bars/lift gates, I'll usually do "highest score plus half the scores of all assistants".  Of course, it all depends on how many characters can physically contribute.

The key thing is, I don't let myself be pinned down to any one method - I rule on the fly according to the situation.  Once you start hard-coding this stuff into the rules (house or otherwise), you start to lose flexibility and run into statistical weirdness.

I think the root problem here is that most RPG rules are designed to have more variance than we would expect in the real world.  i.e. There's a bigger random factor.  More variance means that getting a new roll tends to be better than other options.  If that is the way reality works, everyone taking a roll is very reasonable behavior.  

In the real world, this doesn't happen because the chances that a beginner will outperform an expert are negligible, so it's just not worth the time.  However, in most RPG systems, there's a fair chance that a beginner will perform better than an expert.  

The variance approaches to handling this still work, but I thought I'd point that out.  Addressing the root cause would be to reduce the random factor in rolls (i.e. cut back the open-ended rolls, etc.)

Quote from: Benoist;535809These people also train constantly to act as a team, and develop a sense of awareness of each other and coordination which helps them act in concert, rather than hindering each other in various tasks. Maybe a more convoluted rule could involve the existence of a Coordination skill from which are derived modifiers which affect the final chance of success for a group effort. It'd be interesting to develop.

.

I fail to see how a group of PCs fails to meet this criterion in your response to the SOG team comment.

Or are you ALSO pissed off that the Wizard never swords people in the face and the fighter never tries to cast spells?

Fundamentally: People who are good at doing X are the ones called on to do X. If they fail at X, then people who are less good at X can either accept that X isn't happening, or they can try it themselves.

I swear to god, based on comments on forums that GMs simply hate having players succeed at shit.  Should the dude with five two weapon fighting feats have to use the bow, so the guy with seven archery feats can fight with two scimitars? NO. So why is it wrong that strong guy bashes doors and sneaky guy disarms traps? You don't need SOG training to figure that out. All that training is mostly to do this with skills Joe on teh Street doesn't have (but, amazingly, Adventurers do have!)

Quote from: jhkim;535948I think the root problem here is that most RPG rules are designed to have more variance than we would expect in the real world.  i.e. There's a bigger random factor.  More variance means that getting a new roll tends to be better than other options.  If that is the way reality works, everyone taking a roll is very reasonable behavior.  

In the real world, this doesn't happen because the chances that a beginner will outperform an expert are negligible, so it's just not worth the time.  However, in most RPG systems, there's a fair chance that a beginner will perform better than an expert.  

The variance approaches to handling this still work, but I thought I'd point that out.  Addressing the root cause would be to reduce the random factor in rolls (i.e. cut back the open-ended rolls, etc.)

This is something that Gleichman was pointing out in a thread on skills.  Most RPG mechanic systems are set up to represent combat, thus there is a high degree of randomness that people accept, "any given day" and all that.  Non-combat skill performance, however, is not that random in real life, so skill systems usually greatly favor the beginner through the sheer wall of dice.  I get 500 high-school polevaulters and have them try and beat the world champion, it ain't gonna happen.  In most RPG's the pure brute-force math will practically guarantee one or two will.

Quote from: Spike;535976I fail to see how a group of PCs fails to meet this criterion in your response to the SOG team comment.

Oh, really? For you, a group of guys without any experience at all automatically get the benefits of utterly working seemlesslyl together (as reflected by the house rule of taking systematically the highest skill rating to make the roll). Cool.

Quote from: Spike;535976Or are you ALSO pissed off that the Wizard never swords people in the face and the fighter never tries to cast spells?

Or.. are you a biased douchebag who doesn't understand English when he reads it? Well yes, yes. I think it just might be.

Quote from: Spike;535976Fundamentally: People who are good at doing X are the ones called on to do X. If they fail at X, then people who are less good at X can either accept that X isn't happening, or they can try it themselves.

I swear to god, based on comments on forums that GMs simply hate having players succeed at shit.  Should the dude with five two weapon fighting feats have to use the bow, so the guy with seven archery feats can fight with two scimitars? NO. So why is it wrong that strong guy bashes doors and sneaky guy disarms traps? You don't need SOG training to figure that out. All that training is mostly to do this with skills Joe on teh Street doesn't have (but, amazingly, Adventurers do have!)

Keep fucking those strawmen too. One of these days, you might get results!

Quote from: jhkim;535948I think the root problem here is that most RPG rules are designed to have more variance than we would expect in the real world.  i.e. There's a bigger random factor.  More variance means that getting a new roll tends to be better than other options.  If that is the way reality works, everyone taking a roll is very reasonable behavior.  

In the real world, this doesn't happen because the chances that a beginner will outperform an expert are negligible, so it's just not worth the time.  However, in most RPG systems, there's a fair chance that a beginner will perform better than an expert.  

The variance approaches to handling this still work, but I thought I'd point that out.  Addressing the root cause would be to reduce the random factor in rolls (i.e. cut back the open-ended rolls, etc.)

Yep, good point, well made.

Quote from: Benoist;535799Buzzkill the tank's got Forcing Bars at 5 in 6, Trap Finding at 2 in 6, and Lore at 1 in 6.

Sneakydude has Forcing Bars 1 in 6, Trap finding 5 in 6 and Lore 3 in 6.

Magicwiz has Forcing Bars 1 in 6, Trap finding 2 in 6 and Lore 5 in 6.

If you are systematically using the highest skill in the group for cooperative tasks, this means that Ye Olde Party together have Forcing Bars 5 in 6, Trap Finding 5 in 6, and Lore 5 in 6. So long as they are attempting tasks in concert systematically, they have 5 in 6 chances to succeed at anything.

Now if your players are not aware of this, then I guess it could work, if the system itself doesn't encourage members of a party to each specialize in a specific area of expertise (whereas it is the case with Class systems, like D&D), but once they are aware of that house rule, trust me, they're (1) going to discuss who specializes in what so that all the eventualities are covered, and (2) will never ever leave each others' vicinity and attempt stuff together at all times to guarantee the group's success at searching, finding bits of lore and disarming traps. And let me stress, this is not "weird" or "cheating", it's normal: it's basically what the house rule encourages them to do, so it's natural for them to think about this this way.

The thing is, this is actually a natural part of players collaborating to create a well-balanced party. In reality, players seldom ever achieve this kind of cooperation. I've played parties that had nothing but warrior type characters. Lots of brute strength, but when one player is laying on the floor dying, the rest just sort of stare blankly and wonder what to do. 4th edition I believe encourages this type of party creation by giving specific role types to each class. If you have one Warrior, one rogue, one cleric and one wizard, you are bound to have this type of party naturally.

The other side of the coin is: When was the last time you played a game that relied so heavily on skills? I mean, there are skill checks, but if you are gearing your party to succeed in skill checks, and nothing more, I think you've lost the essence of the game. (or you have a crappy DM).

Balance and common sense are key.

Quote from: jhkim;535948I think the root problem here is that most RPG rules are designed to have more variance than we would expect in the real world.  i.e. There's a bigger random factor.  More variance means that getting a new roll tends to be better than other options.  If that is the way reality works, everyone taking a roll is very reasonable behavior.  

In the real world, this doesn't happen because the chances that a beginner will outperform an expert are negligible, so it's just not worth the time.  However, in most RPG systems, there's a fair chance that a beginner will perform better than an expert.  

The variance approaches to handling this still work, but I thought I'd point that out.  Addressing the root cause would be to reduce the random factor in rolls (i.e. cut back the open-ended rolls, etc.)

I agree with this as it is one of the few problems I still run into.  IN combat it works, and we have it sort of sorted out because of how much armor protects.  But I totally agree that more esoteric skills especially should have far higher barriers to success for amateurs.

Isn't this an issue of setting opportunity in order to grant someone the right to attempt? (A "right" as I'm defining it being composed of a: power, privilege, capacity, and immunity.) I mean, if there's no real consequence, and it must be accomplished to "advance the party's lot/story/clues/whatever," then why roll, just give it to them and have them roll off for how long it took them to get it.

But if consequences matter, then the issue would be whether which of the players has initial "rights" to the task. Those who are closest (in time or distance) are given the priority of capacity; if you can't get there in time, you don't get a chance to try. Those who have the skill are also given priority; often people seem to be hung up on this, however. (Sometimes an unskilled player will be the only person otherwise available and allowed to attempt a task, dependent on circumstance.) Those who are given license to attempt, and immune to censure, are also prioritized; if it's not your job, and you'll be punished if you did it, should take precedence over merely having the skill. This is all a judgment thing, and should be decidable by the GM upon the spot.

Using your appendectomy example, there's a lot to decide before you allow a "me too!" Who can do the procedure (power)? Of the people who can do the procedure, who is nearby enough to do it (capacity)? Of those nearby, who is licensed to do it (immunity)? Of those licensed, who is actually scheduled to do it (privilege)? After that, you have your answer of who gets to do the appendectomy.

Now, it doesn't matter if another person is ready, able, and licensed to do it right outside the lobby -- they can't just "let me try" without the consequences of the first failure to result. After that first failure, there has to be an opportunity of a living patient to allow a second try. Next there has to be a justification to remove the initially available talent to allow another to fill their vacancy (which would almost never be done; there'd already be a known and scheduled wingman provided, if necessary). Then there needs to be a capacity of getting that other person from the lobby into scrubs, dress, hospital liability OK, etc. in time for operation -- and by now we're in the realm of medical fantasy.

So finally we're left with the truism that it's dependent upon the GM's judgment to determine who has a chance to do what, when, where, and how. Anything else for a setting situation with consequences is just... odd. And if there's no real consequences, why go through the extra effort to roll, let alone prioritize who gets to do it first?

Or maybe OHT has another example in mind that'd clarify this issue?

Quote from: taknight;536020The thing is, this is actually a natural part of players collaborating to create a well-balanced party. In reality, players seldom ever achieve this kind of cooperation. I've played parties that had nothing but warrior type characters. Lots of brute strength, but when one player is laying on the floor dying, the rest just sort of stare blankly and wonder what to do. 4th edition I believe encourages this type of party creation by giving specific role types to each class. If you have one Warrior, one rogue, one cleric and one wizard, you are bound to have this type of party naturally.

Really my point isn't that it's somehow weird or unnatural for players to do this. Even in a "normal" game. All I'm pointing out is the flaw in picking the highest skill systematically. If you don't have a particular issue with the group then succeeding at everything in 5 in 6, then there's no issue at all at your game table. It's good.

Quote from: taknight;536020The other side of the coin is: When was the last time you played a game that relied so heavily on skills? I mean, there are skill checks, but if you are gearing your party to succeed in skill checks, and nothing more, I think you've lost the essence of the game. (or you have a crappy DM).

That's a good point.

Quote from: taknight;536020Balance and common sense are key.

Yes.