Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="machineelf" data-source="post: 7001029" data-attributes="member: 6774924">This is the way I handle skill checks. I'm not claiming it's the best way, but it works for me and my group (this is going to be longish, but hopefully worth it). The only roll done behind the screen is an insight check. If they succeed, then they are told correct information. If they fail, they are told incorrect information. The answer is never "you don't know," because they already didn't know before the insight roll. Making the roll is tantamount to forming an opinion, either correct or incorrect. So they form an opinion. This seems to work very well, especially when multiple people make insight checks. See the beauty of it? They don't know which character rolled well and which didn't. This teaches the group to trust the wiser character among the group (with the higher insight skill). All other knowledge skill checks I let my players make (because rolling is fun). But there are still certain problems to tackle.What about history or nature-type checks? Trying to figure out some history of some ruins they encountered, or trying to figure out what they now about a certain monster?I just let them roll. They will either be given the information or not. It's ok for them to know if they succeeded. (I usually set a DC of 10 for general knowledge of the monster, a DC of 15 for basic traits and strengths of the monster, and set a DC of 20 for weaknesses for the monster.)That's great, but what about the "pig-pile" problem (I love that name, whoever came up with it) where they all roll individually, greatly increasing their chances of succeeding? This is where I adopt the approach someone mentioned where either one person makes the check, or its a group check and the average of the rolls tells the information. If you just let everyone roll individually, then what's the point? Someone's going to beat the DC in most cases, so it's an effort in futility.One caveat to this is that there are some non-knowledge skill checks were you want to let people individually try. Like a strength check and trying to break down a door, for example. In this case, I let somebody try. If they fail to break down the door, then it makes sense that with more people trying, then they have a better shot at doing it. So, only someone with a higher strength modifier than the original attemptee can try (or assist, in which case one of the characters gets advantage to the roll.) But if someone with a lower strength score tries by themselves, then I assume they will not be able to break down the door that the previous character with a higher strength score couldn't break down.The only other time I let my players re-roll is if they say they forgot that they have a crowbar they want to try (which gives them advantage), or if they come up with another clever way to try to improve upon their initial attempt. There is still a potential problem when your players realize they can try to scale up (let the weakest person try first, then the next strongest, and so on, thus giving them several tries). The only solution I have for this is to just make it clear that they shouldn't do that for the sake of preventing power-gaming, and explain that we want to be role-players, not roll-players. Hopefully if you have a cool group, they will understand. This shouldn't come up often anyway, though.What about picking locks or disarming traps? I only let people skilled in thieves tools try in the first place. And if more than one person is skilled in thieves tools, then I use the "only one check or a group check" rule. Finally, perception and investigation checks. The problem here, if you let your players roll instead of rolling behind the screen, is that one will ask if they see anything unusual in the room, or know how the secret door works. They roll low and fail. The other players know they failed, and know there might be something in the room that was missed, so they ask to roll (this subtly leads to a power-gaming mentality even in players who normally aren't).  Here again, my only solution is to go with the rule of a group check if more than one person makes the check.</blockquote>

Verification