Why doesn't the help action have more limits and down sides?

[Wyvern]

[MENTION=2374]Wyvern[/MENTION], I think you'ge got "Conversations" disabled. You can enable it in the general settings bit of your account.

No, I just checked and it's already enabled. So I really don't know what the problem is.

(I'd also like to know how to fix the map that shows up under "My Location" in the sidebar of my profile page, which is 15 years out-of-date. When I click on "My Location", it just takes me to a "Find Gamers" page.)

 

[5ekyu]

I'd still like to see that system, if you can PM it to me. Or, like I suggested in the other thread, post it somewhere that's publicly accessible like Dropbox.




I'm curious why you'd have that rule. Personally, I think "flub flavor fluff" as you put it is a fun way of explaining why a character failed at a task they should be good at, due to a poor roll. Just the other day in a Starfinder game, after missing two out of three ranged attack rolls, I moved forward to get a better shot and promptly rolled a natural 1 on the attack -- which I rationalized as "I wasn't watching my step and tripped over a rock."

Wyvern

Why my rule?

As GM putting it onto a player character result is (to me) different from a player choosing to do something narratively onto their character.

As i referenced, i use the humor-based, pratfall etc on the weaker not the stronger, on the fish-out-of-water, not the shark-in-the-pool.

I feel as GM it is poor form, infringing on or abusing trust etc, for me to use narrative flourish to make funny, make fun of or make a joke around your character strengths when a failure is rolled.

That is very close to lampooning your character core.

Its **fine** if the player chooses it themselves.

Basicalky, one is self-depricating humor and the other can be seen as ridicule of others.

But, the out of water thing... Puny wizard "helps" with portcullis... Perfect to use failures (or the bad roll from a success advantage) to have fun off the intentional flaw coming into play... Or at least it has a lot more wiggle room.

I have seen too many times where a GM had an idea (lets do the under siege chef commando) of a "funny schtick that they used to pratfall the combat tough PC "all in good fun" and almost always it did not turn out as funny to the group as ot seemed to the GM.

Make a joke without diminishing the marquee talent serves up better IMO.

 

[Wyvern]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], I can see why players would be sensitive if they felt they were being ridiculed; I'm just not entirely convinced that jokes at the expense of the tough guy are more mean-spirited than jokes at the expense of the weakling. (To me, one of the funniest moments in Willow is when Madmartigan slips and falls while showing off.)

But hey, if that's been your experience, then by all means go on doing what you think is best.

 

[5ekyu]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION], I can see why players would be sensitive if they felt they were being ridiculed; I'm just not entirely convinced that jokes at the expense of the tough guy are more mean-spirited than jokes at the expense of the weakling. (To me, one of the funniest moments in Willow is when Madmartigan slips and falls while showing off.)

But hey, if that's been your experience, then by all means go on doing what you think is best.

Sure... But again to be clear, its not tough guy vs weakling for my rule, but as a GM making a joke out of (at the expense of) a dice fail of some player characters best "thing i do" as contrasted to the same fail in "that thing i suck at."

So, slips and falls - on the hogh dex graceful rogue, scatterbrained - on the high int wizard, unable to spot the ogre they are standing on - for the keen eyed scout...etc.

All great when done by a player for their own character (self-deprecating, laughing with) just imo not so good when done to other peoples character by authority (ridiculing, laughing at.)

 

[Saeviomagy]

The 5e skill rules are so poor that this is hardly the point where you should be making a stand.

If you really want to simulate this, then for knowledge checks give each character different information to the others based on their individual check result (secret, of course) and let them argue it out amongst themselves.

You can also potentially modify the group check rules so that the final result is the median of the participants (ie - if you've got two people and one rolls a 1, but the other rolls a 15, then the final result is 8 - halfway between the two), but that doesn't make much sense a lot of the time: the wizard who rolls a 30+ on his arcana is going to feel pretty put out if the result of the group check is that everyone decides the best spell to use against the fire elemental is fireball. It's just a nonsensical result.

 

[MrHotter]

World of Warcraft.... Video game RPGs.... Now that Tony Vargas is gone....

Why is it annoying to you that players help each other out in group that has band together to fight deadly monsters, explore trapped dungeons, and solve puzzles TOGETHER... when it actually makes since that they would help each other out as a team for their benefit and the benefit of the group?

I show up to a D&D game, the GM says he needs to move the table, I say "I'll help". He says he needs to clean the table off and setup the map, I say "I'll help". He says he needs to clear a spot on the counter, I say "I'll help". As iserith said, making a downs side to helping your party encourages them to NOT act like a party in a party based game... this seems silly to me. Sure I could pull my back helping my gm move his table but I don't any rule that is designed to convince players to play solo is a good rule. Any deficit to helping is just that. With advantage and requirement for the helping player to have the skill to help they can still role badly and narrate failure of a twitch in your back but mechanically discouraging the attempt seems against the premise of getting together with my friends to adventure both in and out of the game. I want players to help each other when ever possible because that's what people should do in or out of the game when they are working together for a common goal. Standing around watching one person do all the work you could help is jerk thing to do!

I understanding the restrictions on requiring the actual skills to help, room to get in there, lack of tools etc. but it seems to me if you don't want your players to work as a team there is a fundamental flaw to you sitting together to play a group game. If you want your players wanted to play solo they would play a video game. The inability for more than one player to help is a MUCH larger issue than player helping each other "too much". As iserith said,If your just tired or your players saying "I help" then call for fewer tests.

I really feel like this is GM perspective problem not a game design problem. It doesn't slow down the game, it doesn't cause issues with players, and the only people I have ever seen get mad or upset because a player got helped was the GM who wanted players to fail... oddly enough the commonly fail anyway and GM is mad about it on premise not because it actually worked out. Its the same line of arguments I hear about the Guidance spell. People band that spell because it reduces their chance of failure. The only reason that matters is if the GM WANTS players to fail. A GM … in my opinion… should not have a predetermined outcome in mind for tests but should let the chips fall where they may and have success and fail options. If the GM has a REQIREMENT that players fail, then set the test should auto Fail and their is no reason for the GM to call for role and no chance for the players to use the "help action". Don't blame players for working together to try to succeed.

I think it would be reasonable to always assume that any out of combat tasks or skill checks will have the players helping each other where possible. I just think it's up to the DM to decide when the 'help' would give the player advantage and what would happen if they fail.

In your examples of helping the DM at your game, we can imagine how that could be interpereted into skill checks.

Helping the DM clear the table: No skill check needed an no penalties for failure. Helping cuts the clearing time in half.

Helping the DM move the table: If not getting the table moved would mean that you can't play tonight, and if the table may be too heavy to move easily, then it could be a roll. This sounds like a good candidate for making a 'Work Together' check with advantage. Failure could mean that the table still gets moved, but you miss out on valuable play time.


There are other tasks or skill checks that you could help with as well, but how much it helps depends on the circumstances and the ability of the helper. If the sink breaks and the DM is proficient in home repair, he can try to fix it. If you are not proficient, but still want to help, you could go get a bucket and hold a flashlight. That may not be enough to give him advantage, but may speed things up. If you were proficient in home repair and you could both get to the sink at the same time, then it could be a roll with advantage.


If the DM decides that he's going to set the mood by playing some music on his dulcimer, then maybe you can't help with that, but you could pull out your vuvuzela and play along. Perhaps this would give him disadvantage on setting the mood he wanted, or if the group is receptive, it may help (in game terms this would be the DM who decides what rolls are needed and what the effect would be of failure/success).


My main concern is avoiding having every roll made outside of combat automatically being considered as having advantage. The game is not designed for that. I think it's great the players would think of ways to help each other, but I don't want auto advantage on everything. Maybe you can't give another player advantage on his acrobatics roll to cross a rope by saying "I help him", but you could give him advantage if you can shoot a arrow into the far wall with a rope attached to it that he could use to help steady himself. That's the kind of teamwork I am looking for when players want to help each other.

 

[ClaytonCross]

You are seeing it only from one side.

While you're focusing on the positive aspect of helping each other, you're not considering that a game can become terribly tedious if using Working Together or Guidance becomes a routine that only requires the second play to raise a hand and say "I help him" or "I cast Guidance", over and over and over. This is what concerns people who in this thread are suggesting to use circumstantial limitations. Such limitations are not meant to always impede helping, which would be tedious it its own way, but rather to make sure that not every occurrence is resolved in the identical way. Variability goes a long way to prevent boredom.

Not true. I suggested on the first page that the helping character should roll the dice so that they can see the impact of their help and the two should narrate what happens as a pair. That encourages player engagement and means they can't just raise a hand and say "I help him" or "I cast Guidance", over and over and over. Since the players are narrating what they are doing they are more involved and the GM is not humiliating them as stated in some other posts. This however is not a GM preventing a rule or a fix for a mechanic. Your problem with them hand waving is not the system but the lack of the players role-playing it. So have them role play it. Don't blame the help mechanic that is working as intended and allows for what your asking.... The same with guidance. When they cast guidance make them say a phrase like calling to their Deity for aid each time. If its too much work for them to use a feature they will only do it when they feel its necessary and if you ensure they a big show of it they will understand why casting guidance flailing your arms about and calling out for their deities support as the Verbal and Somatic components of the spell require gave them disadvantage on their stealth role / persuasion role or strait up got them notice and or kicked out of the shop.

I am just saying stop trying to "fix" your players lazy role-playing by changing the rule as first result and instead address your players role-playing by calling them out when they get lazy with it. I think you will find it will fix more than this one issue and your group is likely to have more fun then arguing over homebrew rules that they don't want to follow because they don't see the need for that restrict them from using an ability you don't have an issue with them using as long as its role-played and not hand waved.

I have also never seen a shortage of players trying new and unusual ways to do something when they fail to do it the first time with help. ...that doesn't mean they aren't going to try the help acton to force a door open before they start looking into their back to find something to blow it up, a horse to help ripe it down, or a window so the can climb into in an attempt to unlock it.

 

[iserith]

I fully support holding players accountable to their prescribed role in the game: describing what they want to do in a reasonably specific manner.

Sometimes, what they want to do isn't actually helpful though. It's up to the DM to decide if their approach to the goal of Working Together is sufficient to grant advantage to the lead character's ability check. This is in line with both the rules for adjudicating actions and the rules for Working Together.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I think it would be reasonable to always assume that any out of combat tasks or skill checks will have the players helping each other where possible. I just think it's up to the DM to decide when the 'help' would give the player advantage and what would happen if they fail.

In your examples of helping the DM at your game, we can imagine how that could be interpreted into skill checks.

Helping the DM clear the table: No skill check needed an no penalties for failure. Helping cuts the clearing time in half.

Helping the DM move the table: If not getting the table moved would mean that you can't play tonight, and if the table may be too heavy to move easily, then it could be a roll. This sounds like a good candidate for making a 'Work Together' check with advantage. Failure could mean that the table still gets moved, but you miss out on valuable play time.

If the GM called for a test then the GM already decided that, so you should not be surprised when they say "I help". If the GM sets up a goal ... expect the players to want to achieve it by the best means that they can. I am still going to require proficiency and the ability to assist. I don't really believe anyone said they were assuming players could always help.

There are other tasks or skill checks that you could help with as well, but how much it helps depends on the circumstances and the ability of the helper. If the sink breaks and the DM is proficient in home repair, he can try to fix it. If you are not proficient, but still want to help, you could go get a bucket and hold a flashlight. That may not be enough to give him advantage, but may speed things up. If you were proficient in home repair and you could both get to the sink at the same time, then it could be a roll with advantage.

Right, I said I require proficiency too. However, I their are times when people help indirectly or directly without proficiency which I find is usually an alteration of the DC not a removal or addition of advantage. An in game example, a player tries to intimidate the last remaining enemy, "Look buddy, there are six of us, we have you surrounded, and you just watched us kill 8 of your friends... if you want to live throw down your weapon...NOW", If what the player is saying is true and you have five other characters standing in a circle around the enemy with 8 bodies of his fallen team at their feet ...its going to make that very true statement very reduce the DC significantly... If another proficient intimidating character says "your buddy agrees with us" and holds up just the head of one of his friends ... I would also give him advantage for this other player providing a help action.

If the DM decides that he's going to set the mood by playing some music on his dulcimer, then maybe you can't help with that, but you could pull out your vuvuzela and play along. Perhaps this would give him disadvantage on setting the mood he wanted, or if the group is receptive, it may help (in game terms this would be the DM who decides what rolls are needed and what the effect would be of failure/success).

Of course that's the job of the GM, I don't really see any disagreement so far...

My main concern is avoiding having every roll made outside of combat automatically being considered as having advantage. The game is not designed for that. I think it's great the players would think of ways to help each other, but I don't want auto advantage on everything. Maybe you can't give another player advantage on his acrobatics roll to cross a rope by saying "I help him", but you could give him advantage if you can shoot a arrow into the far wall with a rope attached to it that he could use to help steady himself. That's the kind of teamwork I am looking for when players want to help each other.

No one said their would always give advantage on everything out of combat but you. I said they would have to be proficient and able to help. If your alone in the room and try something and another player says "I help" then the GM gives them a funny look and says "you're not even their .. so no you don't." and the game continues. I have never had a player at the same table as GM or player ever dispute a legitimate reason they can't including lack of proficiency. Using a rope to lower the DC of climbing is pretty standard their is no disagreement their but what your really saying is you want your players to role-play support... So make the helping player role his advantage dice and describe how they help or fail to help setting the stage as role play. If a player pulls out some climbing gear or hands down a rope ... lower the DC accordingly. There is nothing about what you said that requires a mechanical change to the help action to achieve your stated goal. Your comments are written as concerned rebuttal to what I said but in no way actually disagree with what I said or how to fix it but with the exception your claiming advantage in all things when I specifically called out that I would not do that. In my very first post on the first page, I said "The only thing about this system is that it doesn't allow more than one proficient person to help." so immediately you have to know their are times when you only have one player at a location doing a task who is proficient and no help action can be given. Also, don't count holding the flashlight as a help action...but I would possible lower the DC depending on the situation, if their is already plenty of light maybe not even that.

 

[Nutation]

I have seen no mention of the 4E rule yet, which (after errata, I believe) had a penalty for failure.
The target DC for Aid Another was 10+(character level)/2. Success gave +2, failure gave -1. A character good at the skill would hit that DC most or all of the time.
5E would require a different target DC. The philosophy behind setting task DCs is different. It would have to be based on the DC of the primary task, say DC-10 or better to successfully aid.