D&D General Blending individual checks into group checks

[Charlaquin]

There was another thread about this idea once before where the OP did the analysis, and the conclusion is what I’ve been saying, that the best number of characters to have on a group check is the smallest even number possible - the more characters involved, the lower the total odds, but even numbers are always better than the next-lowest odd number and worse than the next-lowest even number. I’ll see if I can find the thread and link it.

Found it. Though, I slightly misremembered; if everyone in the group has a better than 50% chance of success on the task, then adding more contributors to the group check does actually improve the group’s chances.

Here’s the link

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks for searching, Im very curious about this math. Like is it a bell curve, what's the optimal number of participants?

The optimal number is equal to the number of party members who have a 50% chance of success or better, +1 if that number is odd.

 

[Hriston]

The strongest PC fail, so another player has the idea of their PC try

A number of people have expressed enthusiasm for the group check, so, not to yuck on anyone's yum, but what is the consequence of the first PC's failure?

It seems a strong enough consequence would curtail the piling-on effect.

 

[Lakesidefantasy]

Checks benefit from consequences and time pressures, etc., but I think this misses the point. Players often see an opportunity to throw more dice at a problem, or throwing their best modifiers at it in order to succeed. We can blame this on the Dungeon Masters poor design choices (and frankly, we usually do), but Players also have a responsibility to make the game fun. We as Players should accept our defeats with grace. This gives the game room to breathe.

Trust your Dungeon Master.

 

[CleverNickName]

The way I handle the cascade of "let me try next!" requests after a character fails a check:

I allow retries on skill challenges, but with an important caveat. If a character does the same thing he just did, in the same way that he did it before, he will get the same result he already got. I won't ask for another roll on the check unless the player can describe how he is somehow changing his method. Maybe someone else helps, or maybe he borrows someone else's tools, or maybe he decides to use a crowbar instead of a hammer, whatever--I'm pretty flexible on what "different" can mean.
. . .
Same action by the same person in the same way? You automatically get the same result, no re-roll allowed. I find it keeps the story moving forward, helps everyone stay engaged, encourages creativity, and makes bad rolls matter more. (That last one is very important in 5th Edition, with all the re-rolling that is baked into the system already.)

 

[aco175]

A number of people have expressed enthusiasm for the group check, so, not to yuck on anyone's yum, but what is the consequence of the first PC's failure?

It seems a strong enough consequence would curtail the piling-on effect.

I tend to determine the consequence by the amount of failure. If you fail by a little, then not much but fail by a lot and the trap might go off or the bad guys hear you or spot you.

I was watching a video today by someone I have not seen before and he was talking about skill checks and giving success, but with less than full success for failing some. He wanted more interaction with the players and back and forth to keep the story moving. He gave an example of having a letter on a desk. Number one was to not hide information behind a check, so the letter is on the desk. Making a DC15 Investigation check might determine that the pen the wrote the letter was broken on the desk, meaning something more than just writing the letter. Making a 20 on the check might say more, but making a 13 might also give you something, but less.

I cannot think of a recent example where I had a check and then the others wanted to roll as well. I might ask for everyone to make a perception check to notice a bad guy sneaking in. Maybe an Insight check when one PC was talking to a NPC and failed the DC15 I decided. I guess if the others was talking to him as well I might let them as well. Then, someone tends to roll high. What we are talking about with things switching to a group check might work here as well.

 

[Sorinth]

While I get the appeal for transitioning into a group check, I think the root problem is the DM didn't follow the advice of when to call for a skill check. There should only be a skill check if there's a meaningful/interesting consequence for failure. Without something interesting that happens on failure you shouldn't have that initial roll unless that roll is only meant to find out how long it takes to open the door rather then whether you can open the door.

 

[Li Shenron]

Found it. Though, I slightly misremembered; if everyone in the group has a better than 50% chance of success on the task, then adding more contributors to the group check does actually improve the group’s chances.

Here’s the link

It conforms with my intuition as well.

 

[Li Shenron]

As usual, a thread's topic is not expected to survive the second page...

A number of people have expressed enthusiasm for the group check, so, not to yuck on anyone's yum, but what is the consequence of the first PC's failure?

It seems a strong enough consequence would curtail the piling-on effect.

If it does, you don't use the group check idea.

While I get the appeal for transitioning into a group check, I think the root problem is the DM didn't follow the advice of when to call for a skill check. There should only be a skill check if there's a meaningful/interesting consequence for failure. Without something interesting that happens on failure you shouldn't have that initial roll unless that roll is only meant to find out how long it takes to open the door rather then whether you can open the door.

If I called for a check, it is because there is something interesting either on a failure or on a success, and I want the dice (and players decision on how to use resources to affect the dice) to determine the result.

 

[Hriston]

what is the consequence of the first PC's failure?

If it does, you don't use the group check idea.

You didn't answer the question.