I noticed the thread "A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem" elsewhere on this forum, and it occurred to me that a rule I've been using for quite some time may solve the issue Li Shenron brings up there.
I decided to start a new thread so that this topic doesn't get buried in an already-huge thread, and because the original discussion was (nominally) specific to 5th Edition D&D but my suggestion isn't. Indeed, while I've been using this rule in various versions of D&D/Pathfinder for years, I never got around to formally writing it up until fairly recently, when I was doing up the skill system for my own Fantasy Infinity RPG. Fantasy Infinity is, mechanically speaking, nothing like D&D. Both the problem Li brings up and the solution I've been using apply to a wide variety of systems.
(You can learn more about Fantasy Infinity by visiting my site, and actually I'd appreciate any feedback people want to give me on other aspects of the game - but it's probably better if this thread stays focused on solutions to Li's issue.)
Anyhow, here's the relevant bit from my Core Rulebook. As you'll notice, there's very little reference to FI-specific rules, and it could be applied to any version of D&D with a skill system 99% as written. The only system-specific bit I can see, and it's not essential, is the reference to complications, an optional rule that lets the GM create a 13th Age-style "Fail Forward" scenario.
The Two-Roll Rule
Sometimes the whole party must complete a task (swim across an underground river, for example), though only some of them actually have the skills for it. Even a very competent party is unlikely to have everyone succeed at anything non-trivial. This sometimes makes for fun improvisation, but at other times it’s just a pain in the butt.
At other times, it might seem like everyone, independently, could at least attempt a task (like spotting a stealthy enemy). This has the opposite problem; allowing everyone to roll when only one person needs to succeed doesn’t work well, making many tasks far too easy.
In these two types of situations, the GM can have exactly two PCs (out of a group of three or more) make skill rolls. Typically, these should be the two best suited to the task at hand, although if someone has gone out of their way to declare that they’re doing something related to that task, that character should be involved in these rolls, regardless of their relevant skill or lack thereof. (In this case, the GM may decide to cut them a break in the form of bonus dice (see below) if what they announced was a particularly good idea.)
When only one character succeeds, that character may be able to leverage her success into something that lets the others succeed too, or at least have an easier time. As a simple example, if only one character succeeds at climbing a cliff face, she can drop a rope behind her to give the others a second, easier shot at making the climb. (This is also a good example of a change in circumstances that makes redoing a failed roll possible.)
Not all situations are handled well by the two-roll rule. The more detailed rules in the specialty descriptions should be used when the details matter, like in combat, where how long it takes a particular character to succeed might matter. When the details don’t matter, use the more abstract rules in this section.
If you discover that it makes a significant difference to the party’s chance of success whether you use the two-roll rule or a more detailed procedure from later in this chapter, use whichever method gives you a better chance of success. (And let us know by responding to the latest blog post at philosoraptorgames.com, because that’s the sort of thing we would want to look at and possibly revise.)
+++++++++++
So, there it is. Does anyone see any issues with it, or have any questions, suggestions, or random derogatory comments about my lineage to contribute?
I decided to start a new thread so that this topic doesn't get buried in an already-huge thread, and because the original discussion was (nominally) specific to 5th Edition D&D but my suggestion isn't. Indeed, while I've been using this rule in various versions of D&D/Pathfinder for years, I never got around to formally writing it up until fairly recently, when I was doing up the skill system for my own Fantasy Infinity RPG. Fantasy Infinity is, mechanically speaking, nothing like D&D. Both the problem Li brings up and the solution I've been using apply to a wide variety of systems.
(You can learn more about Fantasy Infinity by visiting my site, and actually I'd appreciate any feedback people want to give me on other aspects of the game - but it's probably better if this thread stays focused on solutions to Li's issue.)
Anyhow, here's the relevant bit from my Core Rulebook. As you'll notice, there's very little reference to FI-specific rules, and it could be applied to any version of D&D with a skill system 99% as written. The only system-specific bit I can see, and it's not essential, is the reference to complications, an optional rule that lets the GM create a 13th Age-style "Fail Forward" scenario.
The Two-Roll Rule
Sometimes the whole party must complete a task (swim across an underground river, for example), though only some of them actually have the skills for it. Even a very competent party is unlikely to have everyone succeed at anything non-trivial. This sometimes makes for fun improvisation, but at other times it’s just a pain in the butt.
At other times, it might seem like everyone, independently, could at least attempt a task (like spotting a stealthy enemy). This has the opposite problem; allowing everyone to roll when only one person needs to succeed doesn’t work well, making many tasks far too easy.
In these two types of situations, the GM can have exactly two PCs (out of a group of three or more) make skill rolls. Typically, these should be the two best suited to the task at hand, although if someone has gone out of their way to declare that they’re doing something related to that task, that character should be involved in these rolls, regardless of their relevant skill or lack thereof. (In this case, the GM may decide to cut them a break in the form of bonus dice (see below) if what they announced was a particularly good idea.)
- If both rolls succeed, the entire party succeeds, with the more skilled characters aiding or covering for the less skilled ones as needed.
- If neither roll succeeds, no one in the party succeeds.
- If only one roll succeeds, then that character succeeds but no-one else does. Alternatively, this might be a good time for a complication (see above), giving the character that succeeded some kind of advantage in dealing with whatever the GM comes up with.
When only one character succeeds, that character may be able to leverage her success into something that lets the others succeed too, or at least have an easier time. As a simple example, if only one character succeeds at climbing a cliff face, she can drop a rope behind her to give the others a second, easier shot at making the climb. (This is also a good example of a change in circumstances that makes redoing a failed roll possible.)
Not all situations are handled well by the two-roll rule. The more detailed rules in the specialty descriptions should be used when the details matter, like in combat, where how long it takes a particular character to succeed might matter. When the details don’t matter, use the more abstract rules in this section.
If you discover that it makes a significant difference to the party’s chance of success whether you use the two-roll rule or a more detailed procedure from later in this chapter, use whichever method gives you a better chance of success. (And let us know by responding to the latest blog post at philosoraptorgames.com, because that’s the sort of thing we would want to look at and possibly revise.)
+++++++++++
So, there it is. Does anyone see any issues with it, or have any questions, suggestions, or random derogatory comments about my lineage to contribute?
